commented on A Baker Refused to Make Your Wedding Cake?
Just another option - perhaps Arizona bakeries (and photographers, caterers, etc.) who support LGBT equality should have their own list, or perhaps there could be a sign they could put in their windows, webpage, and advertisements that says they welcome LGBT individuals? Maybe a small rainbow decal?
I often see the "Jesus fish" on advertisements for businesses that are proud of their Christianity, why can't pro-LGBT businesses have their own sign or decal that they can put on their advertisements?
commented on Imploring Bi People to Come Out is Biphobic
From raku @12: "White dudes as a group love telling other people what to do, as if they're smarter and have more experience being part of that underprivileged group."
This comment sounds as though raku has forgotten Dan was responding to a question he received as an advice columnist. You know, as part of his job? Raku makes it sound as though Dan's advice was unsolicited and that Dan was just sitting around one day when he thought, "As a 'superior white dude,' I had better write a column telling bisexuals how to live their lives!" No, he was simply answering a question that had been asked of him.
BTW, raku, did you read the original letter? I thought Dan's advice was spot on, and he even has science on his side. Psychological studies have shown the best way to change stereotypes and prejudices is for those who hold those views to meet, and interact with, members of the stereotyped group. How are we supposed to help others see bisexual people, when they won't come out and be seen? How are we supposed to foster better communication with bisexual people if bisexual people aren't out?
It also seems that Raku thinks people can read minds. She gets upset when people think a bisexual person is gay if they are dating a person of the same sex, or straight if they are dating a member of the opposite sex.
I will admit that if I don't know you are bisexual and I see you in a relationship with a member of the same sex, yes, I will likely assume you are gay. And if I don't know you are bisexual, and I see you in a relationship with a member of the opposite sex, I will likely assume you are straight. Do you see the most important part of those sentences? Here's a hint: "If I don't know you are bisexual . . ."
Raku, I cannot read your mind, so if I don't know you are bisexual, I will take it at face value that you are straight if you are in a relationship with a member of the opposite sex, and gay if you are in a relationship with a member of the same sex. And considering the statistical base rates of sexual orientations, I don't believe those are unreasonable assumptions. However, if I know you are bisexual, and I see you with a member of either sex, I will know you are a bisexual person who is in a relationship with this person, regardless of their gender.
I have a good analogy. I have Crohn's, a painful and difficult digestive disease. As such, I have an extremely restricted diet. However, when people meet me, unless I tell them, they would never know this. So, if I'm invited to a party, but I don't tell the host about my dietary restrictions, s/he is going to assume that I can eat pretty much anything, and I have will have no right to be upset if there is nothing there for me to eat. The host cannot read my mind and "know" that I can't eat certain foods. The only way the host can know that is if I tell him/her. And usually when I tell the host, they are very kind and accommodating (although I don't expect it, it's always nice). Telling them puts who I am and what I need out there in the open for all to see. And I hope that by being open about my disease, I will bring greater understanding to those who have never heard of Crohn's disease, and by teaching people about it, I am hoping to make life easier for other people with Crohn's. Rather than thinking of it as just some disease, they now know somebody with it, have heard my struggles with is, and by interacting with me they would be less likely to mistreat or dismiss somebody else who has it.
Now, before anybody freaks out and thinks I'm calling bisexuality a disease, I most certainly NOT doing that. While I may be straight (and although I'm not a "dude," I am white), I respect LGBT individuals and strongly support their fight for equality. I'm only using my own experience to help raku understand that you cannot expect the world to change or accommodate you unless you are willing to let the world know why they need to do so. In other words, it's unfair for you to be upset with people who assume you are either gay or straight when you haven't told them you are bisexual. In addition, it is also unreasonable for you to believe that bisexuals can stay closeted and still somehow make their presence known at the same time.
Sorry for the long comment, and seriously, I wasn't saying bisexuality is a disease. We all have aspects of ourselves that we need to share with the world. I want to educate the world about Crohn's disease, and so I am open about it. Dan was just saying that if you want to educate the world about your bisexuality, the best way to do that is to be out and open about it.
Dec 18, 2013
commented on Good Grief and Great Tits
@31, I thought the same thing. How can her purchase of a legally obtained weapon be civil disobedience?
Dan, I don't think you are an asshole if you say, "Merry Christmas". I'm Jewish and when somebody wishes me a "Merry Christmas" I take it with a smile and simply say, "Thank you, and to you, too!" I recognize that we live in a country where Christianity is the majority, and many non-Christians celebrate Christmas as a cultural/secular holiday, so I don't get upset when people assume I celebrate Christmas. Besides, it's always nice to have people send goodness your way.
No, what makes somebody an asshole is if you say, "Happy Holidays," and the other person replies with anything other than, "Thank you, and to you, too," in one form or another: a lecture about how you should be saying, "Merry Christmas," or how you saying, "Happy Holidays," is somehow taking away from Christmas, or by punching you.
In addition, as a non-Christmas celebrating Jew, why am I expected to just deal with people wishing me a "Merry Christmas" and accept it as the well-wishes it is (which I'm happy to do), but when I say, "Happy Holidays," some Christians cannot return the courtesy of being grateful for my well-wishes to them without being upset about the precise wording? Why can't they be respectful of other people and the fact that not everybody wants to say, "Merry Christmas"? Why are we expected to accommodate them, but when we ask them to accommodate us, they freak out?
TL;DR: Whenever anybody wishes you goodness, regardless of wording, simply say thank you and return the sentiment. Why is that so hard to understand?
Dec 9, 2013
commented on The Pope Won't Judge—But People Who Work for Him Continue to Fire
Seattleblues, so let me get this straight. Jesus didn't say anything about homosexuality being an abomination because it was already in the Laws of Moses, which he upheld, and he felt he didn't need to comment any further (how you can know that is beyond me, but for the sake of argument I'll go with it for now).
This would imply that Jesus intended for his follows to also uphold the Laws of Moses, yes? If Jesus just assumed everybody understood that homosexuality is an abomination and didn't need to explain any further, then that would mean his followers would have to not only be familiar with, but be expected to follow, the Laws of Moses.
Yet, Christianity rejects the Laws of Moses, and claims they don't have to follow them because Jesus fulfilled them and humanity is now under his grace. If Jesus had intended for his followers to reject the Law (as Paul claims) then why would he assume his followers would still know that homosexuality is an abomination and not say anything about it? And if Paul is correct, that those who follow Jesus don't have to follow the Laws of Moses, why would Jesus assume that everybody would just "know" that the part about homosexuality being an abomination is still valid, but all the rest about not eating pork or shellfish, not wearing mixed fibers, no tattoos, not eating milk and meat together, etc., isn't?
I'm guessing you would explain this disparity by saying that Jesus's early followers were Jews who were familiar with the Laws of Moses, so they already knew, and once Paul came along, he was able to inform the new Gentile converts about this one particular Law of Moses that was still to be upheld, even though all the rest weren't.
Of course, I could be wrong in my guess of how you would explain this discrepancy, but even so, it still doesn't change the fact that Jesus never said one word about homosexuality. And no matter how you "interpret" Jesus's motives or intentions to fit your agenda, you cannot change that fact.
Oct 16, 2013
commented on SL Letter of the Day: Should I Stay Or Should I Go Dominate Other Men For Money?
One question I have that has nothing to do with her boyfriend: What does she do for her day job, and what would happen if one of her co-workers discovered her sex-work side-job? In other words, would being a sex-worker (even a non-sex sex worker) jeopardize her job, if it was discovered that is what she is doing on the side to make extra money? Considering how monetarily focused she seems to be, she might well consider that question before pursuing her non-sex sex work.
Aug 20, 2013
commented on Shooting at Elementary School in Georgia
From the way fairly.unbalanced talks, you would think Dan's opinion was the only factor that made it possible for us to go to war with Iraq! As though Dan's opinion really made a difference in whether or not we invaded that country. I remember active protests against the war as it approached, and that didn't stop anything, so why would Dan's single opinion, an opinion for which he has repeatedly acknowledged was wrong and has apologized, have any affect on whether or not we were going to invade Iraq? (Sorry, Dan, I'm a huge fan, but as we all now know, once W was [s]elected, our going to war with Iraq was pretty much guaranteed, and nothing was going to stop it.)
Now as COMTE @16 has pointed out, the people whose opinions DID lead us into that horrific war (with the exception of Colin Powell) have never apologized or acknowledged that they were wrong about WMDs and that the entire war was a complete blunder. Why don't you hold them as responsible as you seem to hold Dan?
And you linking this latest school shooting to Dan's support for the war in Iraq is disingenuous at best. Remember, W and his cronies promised us that we would be greeted as "liberators" and that the war would be over in a matter of months. Therefore, Dan wasn't supporting killing Islamic children, he was simply duped, as many members of Congress were, into thinking that by invading Iraq, we would actually be saving many Iraqi children from death at the hands of Saddam Hussein. Dan's only mistake was in believing that our presence in Iraq would be a good and stabilizing force, and he's not the only one who made that mistake.
Just because he might have been mistaken about the Iraq war doesn't mean his opinions on gun control have no merit. We all make mistakes. At least he is able to admit when he was wrong. Will you have the same strength and courage to admit that perhaps you might be wrong about the need for rational gun control? Or, with each school shooting, will you keep bringing up this same, old, tired, and completely unrelated argument over and over again? I'm guessing it will be the latter, but you never know.