caeron

You are arguing strawmen. No doubt it makes you feel good to thin we're all christian haters upset about sandwiches. I dislike them because they donated significant resources to the anti-gay marriage folks. WHich is what I said if you'd actually read what I wrote. I couldn't give a rat's ass about their belief in the imaginary man in the sky. I care when they give money to anti-gay rights groups.

That's your take, it isn't mine. I think the whole thing springs from hearing about their anti-gay marriage activism, and I imagine that most of us object to that rather than their giving to christian foster homes. I share the same antipathy towards the mormon church for its efforts on prop 8.

You did read the article you linked, right? "Over the years, the company’s operators, its WinShape Foundation and the Cathy family have given millions of dollars to a variety of causes and programs, including scholarships that require a pledge to follow Christian values, a string of Christian-based foster homes and groups working to defeat same-sex marriage initiatives." It's a lot more than just sandwiches for haters.

I stopped paying attention to the Academy after Brokeback lost to Crash.

Interesting. This reminds me of a friend I once had. He had _no_ social skills. He was a computer hacker that went to college at 15 I think. Brilliantly smart, socially crippled in many ways. He couldn't understand the social 'white lie' or the fact that everyone wasn't brutally truthful with everyone all the time. I always thought it was sort of a kneejerk response of his. "I can't cope with figuring out what is reasonable to say, so I'm going to decide that people who don't say everything are bad."

The news points out that the couple in question were in fact in a civil union the legal equivalent of marriage, so the "only to married couples" excuse is just a dodge.

That is sort of my view on his motives, but I hadn't heard him say it. I had read that when asked if there was anything he wouldn't release, he said no. If he acted with journalistic intentions, I could respect it. I don't believe he does.

I don't view, "because people are curious" as justification for the behavior. If there is legitimate wrong-doing, sure, but not just because if released it would be "news". From my reading of the articles on the cables, 99% of them had no useful public value. What this type of behavior does is just discourage documentation. Don't send a cable, call somebody and talk to them. No paper trail. I don't view this as helping government transparency. I view it as an Assange ego trip. His agenda is to become the news, not a legitimate journalistic desire to uncover wrong-doing.

I'm not a WikiLeaks fan because they've basically said they'll publish anything. Most of the cables released did nothing other than damage to discretion that diplomacy needs. Other releases are the same, they hurt without enlightening.

Well, there are plenty of christian cults as well, but to the extent you're pointing out that cults are worse, I accept that argument.

So what? If I made up a religion that Dorothy Parker was God's Chosen Voice on Earth, the fact that she existed doesn't make it any less stupid. It annoys me a bit that people laugh at the new made up religions while giving the old ones a pass. 2000 year old stupid isn't less stupid than 50 year old stupid. I'm all for the laughing. Just laugh at them all.

Scientology is no more crazy than believing the creator of the universe knocked up a jewish woman so he could come into the world, kill himself, and therefore forgive man. Or that the creator was whispering in the ear of some guy running around the Arabian desert. Or that the creator cares deeply about whether you eat shrimp or pork. Or.... It's religion. Pretty much by definition, it's ridiculous.

My dad who was a career officer called me with the news. He was so excited that the people he served so long with were finally going to do the right thing. I was very touched. I was offered a ROTC scholarship back in the day, but turned it down because I wasn't going to lie to serve my country.

I'd just smile at him and say, "You're a handsome young man. I'm sure you'll figure something out." and see how he responds.

This is a thread about _feeling_ old, not actually _being_ old!

I'm 47. I was at the physical therapist today who said my back pain is probably arthritis. I can completely relate :-(

By the time it got to my state it was a foregone conclusion, but I think she would have been a much better president than obama has turned out to be.

Of course. Because otherwise the lawyers would have to argue that calling him gay was a bad thing.

I think a token is worth a penny to the performer, but costs like 2 cents to buy....

I wish my healthcare wasn't tied to my employer.

Um, I know how Scientology works. I just don't agree with you. The fact that we both know about Xenu says that it has leaked and they aren't keeping the secrets very effectively, are they? Heck, Xenu has its own wikipedia entry! So why nothing about curing homosexuality? The only thing I find currently are scientology public statements that they don't care about someone's private sexuality. I think the whole secrecy thing is to mimic the mystery cults of old. Hidden wisdom is always 'cooler'. Even if the hidden wisdom is dumb as shit.

If Scientology currently thinks it can cure homosexuality, I'm sure it would say so. It wouldn't need to have that reported in some 'expose'. I would argue that all religions are 'for profit', and don't find anything worse about scientology than all the other imaginary man in the sky faiths.

You miss my point. I looked and could find nothing current from scientology on this. THe last stuff is decades old. With the catholic church and the like you can find stuff they said from last week. So I dispute the assertion that the they're actively anti-gay. Second, he's a famous scientologist. I cannot find anything that has him as a 'ranking' member of the group. I'm fine with outting people who actively work to undermine the community or attack us. This fails on both counts. I can't find evidence that they are currently anti-gay. Nor can I find evidence that even if they were that He has a say in the matter.

60 year old stuff? Seriously? 60 years ago, NOBODY thought being gay was ok. Using this as your cover for saying it is ok to out Travolta is ridiculous.

Try google. Scientology doesn't have that view currently. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_topics_and_Scientology And on what basis do you equate Travolta with being a cardinal?