http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2009/07/08/there-aint-no-ladies-now-theres-only-pigs-and-whores Comments On: There Ain't No Ladies Now, There's Only Pigs And Whores by Dan Savage en-us Copyright 2009 The Stranger. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, The Stranger readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact The Stranger. webmaster@thestranger.com (The Stranger Webmaster) Tue, 24 Nov 2009 00:00:01 -0800 Tue, 24 Nov 2009 19:15:00 -0800 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss Posted by in-frequent]]> Mon, 13 Jul 2009 09:45:15 -0700 The Stranger Posted by One more thing]]> Sun, 12 Jul 2009 04:19:49 -0700 The Stranger
How 'bout offering up your own damned ass for sacrifice? Cop-out? Who cares.

As for the discussion about women being chattel at that time in that place, I have to ask: So, what? It's still vile. I am not an ethical relativist. In every time period, there have been people willing to stand up against evil practices that the majority considered desirable. Slavery may have been acceptable to the majority of whites in the U.S. during the first 100 years of the country's existence, but it was still a vile practice and its supporters are morally reprehensible. Those who had the courage to fight against it are to be praised. Those who supported it are to be condemned--no excuses, no "get out of jail free" card. The same with the hateful misogyny of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic religious doctrines. I don't care when it was, the people who supported this behavior are sick pieces of trash.
Posted by aznemesis]]> Sun, 12 Jul 2009 04:06:23 -0700 The Stranger
So. Damn. Gross.

Ever been in the shared bathroom of two or more women? gross. My sister has her own at my parent's place, and I won't even go near it. Girls poo, and fart, and belch, and pick their nose. BECAUSE THEY'RE PEOPLE.
Posted by baldheadedmambajamba]]> Fri, 10 Jul 2009 08:21:56 -0700 The Stranger
Posted by Amelia]]> Thu, 09 Jul 2009 20:35:28 -0700 The Stranger Posted by Gomez]]> Thu, 09 Jul 2009 15:05:16 -0700 The Stranger
Are you with ELCA? I'm a nonbeliever, but a friend of mine--one of the most intellecutally rigorous and decent Christians I've ever encountered, and a devoted feminist and GLBT ally--is of that synod...if that's the correct term.
Posted by JFClark]]> Thu, 09 Jul 2009 13:25:39 -0700 The Stranger
Leviticus 18: 6-18
Posted by kim in portland]]> Thu, 09 Jul 2009 12:47:09 -0700 The Stranger
we can take from the story that in the past women were not treated as equals to men. we can easily see what's wrong with this view, and hold that against whatever bible blogger we are railing against this week.

but we are not forced to assume that god - or anyone who believes in "that" god - approve of incest even at the time. in fact, i think you get quite the opposite impression.

now, of what value is your approach? that this blogger should defend incest like he (wrongly) defends treating women like it's four thousand years ago? but the blogger doesn't say that, and no one who values the text is likely to come to the conclusion that incest is tacitly approved. as such, you compromise a decent argument (that's not how we should treat women today) with a poor argument/insult (your god approves of incest).
Posted by in-frequent]]> Thu, 09 Jul 2009 11:11:43 -0700 The Stranger
And yet, strangely, God seemed to have no opinion on that point whatsoever; in fact, since there's no mention of the incest being condemned in any way, one would be forced to draw the conclusion that God at least tacitly approved of the act.
Posted by COMTE]]> Thu, 09 Jul 2009 09:44:29 -0700 The Stranger This is the correct interpretation of the story you should see through the eyes of the people at that period where hospitality was above any consideration, being of middle eastern descent i am clearly on Lot's side, but one must agree that incest at the end was the vilest and the most sinful thing to happen
Posted by chaya760]]> Thu, 09 Jul 2009 09:29:16 -0700 The Stranger
You have to remember that in the Bible, women are considered chattel. They can be bought and sold, and raped at will. (Although to follow Biblical law, a virgin rape victim must marry her rapist...Of course that is after the rapist pays the victim's father 50 shekels.) A father controls who marries his daughter. She gets no choice. If a husband is not pleased with his wife, he can simply dismiss her. So, offering up your virgin daughters to protect men was considered the righteous thing to do.
Posted by Rob in Baltimore]]> Thu, 09 Jul 2009 09:18:49 -0700 The Stranger
.... a brain, but obviously not the power to spell. "Hear" not "here." Apologies.
Posted by Martychan]]> Thu, 09 Jul 2009 00:06:27 -0700 The Stranger
Thank you!! I'm a gay-rights supporting Lutheran, and I am sick to death of people misunderstanding the Bible, and especially the story of Sodom! In many cultures around the world, hospitality to one's guests was seen as the highest priority, set up even above your family, and if you allowed your guests to be violated in any way, it was one of the worst dishonors imaginable (see: Oedipus.) Was Sodom sexually corrupted? Yes, but that isn't really the point of the story, they were corrupted in ALL ways, which is why they were demanding Lot to introduce them to his guests. They were so corrupt they stepped over the boundaries of hospitality.

So, here this you fing crazy fellow Christians: get thee to a decent Bible Study, or leave the thinkin to those of us whom God gave a BRAIN.
Posted by Martychan]]> Thu, 09 Jul 2009 00:05:11 -0700 The Stranger
http://www.boomkat.com/item.cfm?id=12741…

track 2: 'The Lesson of Sodom (according to Lot)' by Momus
Posted by jw36]]> Wed, 08 Jul 2009 22:35:07 -0700 The Stranger Posted by Amelia]]> Wed, 08 Jul 2009 21:02:07 -0700 The Stranger
@21: Women have orgasms?! (stolen from Paul Ford, ftrain.com)

Posted by Amelia]]> Wed, 08 Jul 2009 20:54:01 -0700 The Stranger
http://www.adultswim.com/video/?episodeI…
Posted by matt!]]> Wed, 08 Jul 2009 20:47:05 -0700 The Stranger Posted by pissy mcslogbot]]> Wed, 08 Jul 2009 19:06:00 -0700 The Stranger
Anyhoo ... I'm done with him, he can find someone else to increase his site hits.

Dan, I suggest you ignore him and stop providing him revenue through site hits. Why not, invite him to Slog Happy and engage him there?
Posted by kim in portland]]> Wed, 08 Jul 2009 19:04:23 -0700 The Stranger Posted by JFClark]]> Wed, 08 Jul 2009 18:59:03 -0700 The Stranger
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?i…
Posted by JFClark]]> Wed, 08 Jul 2009 18:50:58 -0700 The Stranger
@ 26 & 29
Posted by kim in portland]]> Wed, 08 Jul 2009 18:39:31 -0700 The Stranger
He's Jewish, not a Christian.
Posted by kim in portland]]> Wed, 08 Jul 2009 18:38:44 -0700 The Stranger
I totally disagree. I think it's fun that he posts this stuff. Quite interesting getting a dose of the other side so close up. Great for discussion too. Plus, it's fun to see Dan dust off his old biblical knowledge and bust it out in an argument against gay Christian dude. Much more interesting than the repetitive 20 posts a day about how Obama is officially de-friended, etc

Keep it up, Dan. Good times.
Posted by Confluence]]> Wed, 08 Jul 2009 18:33:55 -0700 The Stranger