Gay marriage vs. “science” I pulled from my ass

Since I just ragged on a letter to the editor of a newspaper in my former home state of Maryland, I guess I should also look at an anti-gay letter from my other home state of Oklahoma, where the situation for gays is much, much worse. The scholar who wrote this particular piece of…something is Pat Rupel of Edmond, the town where I went to high school. He opposes gay marriage in the name of SCIENCE!

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg set science back about 3,000 years by…

Wait, wait, wait. I gotta stop you right there. You do realize that in Oklahoma, proposing to “set science back about 3,000 years” is a good thing to most citizens, right? I mean, we get at least one bill proposing exactly that every year in the state legislature. It’s the people who support these kinds of things that are most receptive to the whole “Legislate gay people’s lives” schtick. You need to be aware of your audience.

Anyways, continue.

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg set science back about 3,000 years by comparing millions of years of anthropological and genetic evolution to the difference between whole and skim milk.

Science will never recover from Bader Ginsburg’s courtroom analogy! We might as well just take evo-devo and the Higgs boson and shove them up our asses at this point!

It says a lot about my ambivalent attitude towards the state of my birth that, when I read this, my first thought is, “At least this asshole believes in evolution.” Though I question what he thinks the term “evolution” means. I get “genetic evolution”, but what exactly is “anthropological evolution”? Is that just a fancy term for human evolution? If so, why not just say “human”?

More importantly, how does Bader Ginsberg’s analogy have any effect on any evolutionary science anywhere in the known universe?

The assumed equality of homosexual and heterosexual unions is strictly a legal invention, not a fact based on scientific research.

And what scientific research established heterosexual marriage? Last time I checked, straight marriage was just as much a legal invention as gay marriage.

In an attempt to be “tolerant,” we appear to be willing to ignore or remain ignorant of recent biological, psychological and genetic research into gender differences.

Oh, you mean the extremely controversial evolutionary psychology that is by no means established mainstream science yet?

Look, here’s the thing about gender differences:

Is there good reason to suspect that evolution resulted in behavioral/psychological differences between the genders? Probably. Evolution resulted in numerous other species with gender dimorphisms in behavior, so we have no reason to consider ourselves a magical exception.

Do we have a good grasp what those differences are in our species? Rarely. For most, we have only biases, stereotypes, and poorly reasoned evolutionary psychology. Acknowledging the reality of gender differences is not the same as having a scientific basis for specifying what exactly they are. There are very few gender differences in behavior that have anything like a solid scientific basis proving that they exist.

Should we expect these gender differences to be set-in-stone, black-and-white differences with no overlap or middle ground? Absolutely not. Evolution doesn’t work that way. There’s always variation. We should expect gender differences to be real, but we should also expect to find a lot of variation. And we sure as fuck should never act as if relationships which don’t fit the stereotype of some gender difference are somehow “unnatural”. Variation is natural. Difference is natural. If we’re going by evolution as our standard, then we should expect there to be some individuals who are different from the majority. Not all women will fit neatly into the stereotype of femininity. Not all men will fit neatly into the stereotype of masculinity. There’s nothing wrong with that. It’s just nature.

Additionally, not all gender differences are the result of genetics. Some are hammered into people’s heads as they grow up. Girls are discouraged from being assertive or standing up for themselves (Be a proper lady!). Boys are discouraged from being honest about when something hurts them (Take it like a man!). Is it really a genetic fact that women are passive and men are insensitive? Almost certainly not. More likely, people are just trained to act this way. It might be a psychological byproduct of the fact that men are larger and more muscular than women, so people associate the personality of toughness with those who have the stronger body, and the personality of passivity with those who have the weaker body. It might be true when averaged over the population, but that doesn’t make it a good predictor of how any particular individual should be. Nor does it mean that there’s anything wrong with the numerous individuals who don’t fit this stereotype.

Oh, wait, I was responding to a homophobe. What does he have to say at this point?

I don’t care how consenting adults get their sexual pleasure or if the legal rights enjoyed by heterosexual “unions” are given to same-sex “unions.” However, don’t expect me to park my intellect at the door of so-called tolerance or political correctness.

And here I was trying to discuss gender differences with at least some amount of nuance and sensitivity to the current political and scientific climate. What I really should have done is pull turds out of my ass labeled “political correctness” and “tolerance” and throw them at the Daily Oklahoman, so they could publish them as if they were actual opinions from an actual human being. Silly me!

Despite the groupthink of the American Pediatric Society, the scientific jury has just started deliberating on how the significant differences between male and female might affect child development.

And this is relevant to gay marriage because — LOOK! A MOOSE! *runs away*

We’ve not even begun to understand how to combine the gifts of female and male.

Someone didn’t get the talk.

Words and their associated ideas change the world.

This sentence seriously followed right after the one I quoted above. Your guess is as good as mine.

We may change the name of the “rose,” but its essence doesn’t change.

This pseudo-Shakespearean sentence followed immediately after the one I subsequently quoted. It contradicts it. No explanation is given.

Look at the impact of the technological revolution.

Again. Very next sentence. I have no idea what this motherfucker is saying at this point. We don’t know how to combine males and females, words change the world, except they don’t, look at technology. I’m starting to wonder if the author had a stroke at this point in the letter.

If our leaders can simplify millions of years of complex animal and human evolution to the difference between skim and whole milk, then we may as well believe the earth is flat, the sun revolves around the earth human activity doesn’t affect global warming or that black people aren’t citizens and therefore without legal rights…

Yes! If we accept that gays can have families, then we might as well throw out all of modern science and all the progress made in civil rights since the Civil War. All because Bader Ginsburg oversimplified things! Only a really evil, stupid person would make a sweeping judgment based on a gross oversimplification and ignorance of science! And Pat Rupel knows that the evil, stupid person doing this is none other than Ruth Bader Ginsburg. I mean, who else might be doing something like that?

New Game: Bullshit Bigot Boilerplate

I’ve lived in five different states–Oklahoma, Louisiana, Maryland, New Mexico, and Indiana. I was very proud last year when one of my former home states, Maryland, legalized gay marriage by popular vote.  It made me want to boil a crab and joyfully whack it with a hammer. Maryland is also home to Brendon Ayanbadejo, who continues to show us that football is gay whether you like it or not. (Somehow I suspect that Oklahoma and Louisiana will continue to lag behind Maryland on this issue for quite some time…)

But not everyone in Maryland has come to terms with the fact that their state is finally on the right side of history. Responding to this op-ed from the Baltimore Sun, reader William Engle wants to let everyone know that an op-ed is…an op-ed.

I found Dan Rodricks‘ column on Dr. Ben Carson jaded and biased (“Ben Carson’s biblically based conservatism,” March 31).

His opinion editorial was biased! It lacked that detached objectivity that people normally have when expressing a thought that is clearly labeled as their own personal opinion.

Mr. Rodricks accused Dr. Carson of making homophobic remarks, but it was just his opinion that the remarks were homophobic in nature.

Mr. Rodricks expressed his opinion in his opinion piece! Egads!

Interestingly, Engle has in fact expressed a fact (in the sense that any tautology is a fact), but the “fact” he thinks he’s expressing is one of those conservative “facts” where information which contradicts what one already believes is rejected on the basis that one didn’t already believe it. Hence Carson’s opinion is not homophobic because Engle didn’t already believe it was homophobic. So when Rodricks called it homophobic, clearly that’s “bias” rather than “fact”. If it were fact, then Engle would have already believed it to be homophobic before he read Rodricks’ piece.

Mr. Rodricks should write a column every week denouncing those who oppose gay marriage for their anti-gay bigotry.

I’ll be honest. I’m not exactly sure what to make of this sentence. But I do agree with it. I certainly intend to do this.

I believe that homosexuals should have the same rights as any other citizen.

Hey everybody, let’s play my new favorite game, Bullshit Bigot Boilerplate (BBB)! And now for the “Guess What the Next Sentence Says!” segment.

Today we have a conservative semi-southerner who thinks “bias” means “different from my beliefs”. He’s just splurted out a sentence about thinking everyone should have equal rights.  Which utterly predictable, bullshit right wing non-thought will follow in the next sentence? Will it be…

A.) Homosexuals have the same right to follow the Bible and do all and only what it says?

B.) Homosexuals have the same right as any other citizen to have me tell them they can’t marry?

C.) Homosexuals have the same right to marry an opposite sex person as any other citizen?

D.) Homosexuals have the same rights as any other citizen, except for the following rights which I exclude arbitrarily?

Let’s find out!

However, if they need to legalize their actions they should do so and call it something other than marriage.

DING DING DING DING DING! It was D, everybody! If you picked D, add 5 points to your BBB score card. If you guessed something else, never fear–it’s inevitable that some bigot out there will say A, B, or C at some point.

Centuries of civil and religious ceremony lie behind the relationship between a man and woman who chose to join together, and it is called a marriage.

Centuries of religious ceremony also lie behind one man marrying multiple women and selling his daughters to marry other men as if they were property. Will you be writing a letter to the editor in favor of this any time soon?

And now, we go to the Meaningless Dogwhistle section of BBB. What empty, tired cliche of a term will Engle use to try to make us believe his dumbshit opinion is actually daring and interesting?

Just because that isn’t politically correct shouldn’t make us change the definition to suit those who practice homosexuality.

Oooo, “politically correct.” That’s worth 10 points in BBB.

If you look up marriage in the dictionary it is specific in definition and not arbitrary.

Huh. Okay. Gimme a second to go to Dictionary.com and look that up…

mar·riage [mar-ij] Show IPA

noun

1.a.the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. Antonyms: separation.

b.a similar institution involving partners of the same gender: gay marriage. Antonyms: separation.

Yep. Pretty specific.

To include homosexuals under the same centuries old identification denigrates the past and current relationship of millions of persons in a marital union.

“My own rights suck if other people get them too!” 20 points in BBB.

It is not homophobic to have this opinion or belief.

It most certainly is. You honestly believe that someone else merely being able to marry somehow magically harms your marriage. If that’s not an utterly irrational fear of gay people, then I don’t know what is.

Legalizing gay unions and calling the union a marriage will flaunt cultural mores and the sensibility of millions of people.

Fuck their rights! What about MY FEELINGS?

It is as ridiculous as calling one of the partners in such a relationship the wife, if both partners are male; or calling one of the partners in such a relationship the husband if both partners are female.

But asserting that you must prevent people you don’t even know from marrying because the mere possibility of them marrying denigrates your own marriage? Nothing ridiculous about that at all. Unless you’re totally “biased”, by which I mean you’re a separate human being with thoughts that somehow don’t correspond to my own.

(15 points in BBB for naive doxastic solipsism.)

Additionally, Mr. Rodricks chose to discuss other concerns that Dr. Carson has expressed.

How dare he? I’m so offended by the concerns Rodricks expressed about the concerns Carson expressed, that I must write in to the Baltimore Sun to express my concern! There’s a bonus 20 points if he follows this up with a statement that shows a complete and utter lack of self-awareness…

Mr. Rodricks obviously disagree with Dr. Carson on a range of subjects. But when he implies that all those who agree with Dr. Carson are to be disregarded, one wonders who set him up as an authority on anything?

This brilliant insight on the nature of political debate was brought to you by William Engle, Authority on Who’s an Authority on Anything. 20 points!

If anything, Mr. Rodricks’ column reflects the views of a man who has no tolerance for any point of view other than his own.

Because when people write something that says they disagree with someone, that means they have no tolerance, and that’s why I’m writing in to disagree with him! 2x multiplier on the previous lack of self awareness, for a total of 40 points!

(And another 30 points for the tired cliched tu quoque of mistaking disagreement for intolerance, all while intolerantly insisting that other people can’t get married because it causes evil Leprechauns to destroy your own marriage.)

Come to think of it, this game sucks. The bigots make it too easy.

Roger Ebert 1942-2013

I was really sad to read that Roger Ebert has died after battling cancer for over a decade. He was a great writer, and I loved reading his reviews (although I will never understand the fact that the only reviewer in the universe who liked Speed 2 was Ebert. Usually it’s Armond White that likes the obviously horrendous movies). He also had a lot of great insights about facing death as an unbeliever.

He also knew how to riff on religion, as evidenced by his brutal, epic, totally awesome take-down of Ben Stein’s execrable Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. Everyone on Earth should read it.

All the kewl kids are bigots

Hey, kewl kids! I’m hep wit da lingo, yo, and I wanna tell you dudes about all the krunk shiznit my dawg Jesus be doin’, yo! If you wanna be da Big Dawg, you gotta be down wit da Lynch Mawb, yo! Word to yo’ mama, bitch! Those whack liberals be trippin, yo, if they ain’t down wit da rope, dawgz! Lynchin’ nigs iz DA BOMB, y’all! Jesus loves lynching, homies!

I presume the above wasn’t enough to convince anybody that lynching is the hip, cool thing to do. I presume this because I don’t think people are utter morons who need to be lead around like sheep. But that’s because I’m not Christian.

Basically any time society decides that some practice is a backwards, cruel relic of a more ignorant time that should be abandoned, someone will come along to try to make it “cool” again. I can’t imagine how it could ever work, and know of no instance where it has, but making outdated, boring, bigoted crap out to be the hip cool thing is a common pass time amongst conservatives who just can’t deal with the fact that society (like almost everything else) changes over time, but also don’t want to be viewed as a complete fossil by the under-30 crowd.

Enter this douche-toaster:

His name is Doug Giles, and unfortunately he’s not nearly as cool as that other Giles, despite being much younger. No, this Giles is senior pastor at Clash Church (apparently Rob Liefeld consulted on the name). This is how he describes himself at his TownHall.com profile:

Doug Giles is the Big Dawg at ClashDaily.com. Watch him on ClashTV. Follow him on Facebook and Twitter. And check out his NEW BOOK, Sandy Hook: When Seconds Count, Police Are Minutes Away.

“Big Dawg”. Jesus titty balls, do I hate these guys. The “hip” preachers, the ones who try to make Christianity out to be something other than the outdated, irrelevant superstition that it is.  When I was a kid and my parents forced me to go to church, our youth group was subjected to endless amounts of simpering, pandering horseshit from these types, and endless amounts of inane praise “music” cynically designed to mimic modern pop music without any of that nasty nuance or originality or creativity. These guys are an utterly empty marketing ploy more ill conceived, out-of-touch and downright cringe-inducing than McDonalds’ infamous I’d Hit It campaign. Honestly, I’d rather listen to one of the stodgy old preachers and the classic hymns than have to spend five minutes around one of these types.

Religion is not, nor will it ever be, hip. It’s not cool. It’s not edgy. It’s not. It’s just not. Religion is everything old and backwards and boring and patronizing. It’s the apotheosis of the status quo, the lionization of the imagined past, the bulwark against which anything new or progressive or challenging or groundbreaking must contend. Religion is Spam, station wagons, public lynchings and “Damn kids get off my lawn” all rolled up into one big, greasy, hypocritical wad of irrational dogma. Wearing sunglasses and calling yourself “dawg” won’t change that. You’re not hip. You’re lame. Deal with it.

But of course, he won’t. Rather, he’ll write insufferable op-eds at Town Hall full of hamfisted humor and confabulated coolness to try to convince the millennial generation that all the kewl kids want to interfere with gay peoples’ relationships.

The other day I was on a radio show being interviewed about my new Sandy Hook Massacre book when the conversation turned to gay marriage. I’m sitting there thinking, “Huh?” … “I didn’t sign up to talk about gay marriage” … “Good Lord, man, I’d rather watch Yoko Ono do an interpretive dance to “Riders on the Storm” then yap about two big lesbians wanting to get hitched.”

Huh huh. It’s funny ’cause they’re fat. And gay. Gayfat is funny. Huh huh.

Number One. Before I directly address the gay marriage issue, allow me to state that I care more about the $16.7 trillion in debt that our nation’s mired in, our evaporating Bill of Rights and national security issues than I do whether or not Brad and Chad can be betrothed. Call me selfish and ill focused.

Okay. You’re selfish and ill focused.  Talking about gay marriage doesn’t stop you from also talking about other (real or imagined) problems. And the fact that you’re writing an entire article on gay marriage makes me suspect that your claim that you don’t want to talk about it is disingenuous at the very least. But more importantly, the reason you don’t want to talk about it is that you want to be able to outlaw someone’s basic rights without ever having to justify your actions to the public. You don’t want to talk about it because it’s easier to oppress a minority when no one talks about them. So, yes, you’re selfish and ill focused. You’re also an assfuck.

In addition, I told my host that, as long as we have men and women in harms way who have to ration food, fuel and ammo due to the sequestration, I don’t give a rat’s backside about gay marriage. I’m so mean, eh?

Listen, right wing nuts. We need to get something straight. Do you, or do you not, support budget cuts? It seems like you’re always asking for them, but then when they come (along with the loss of jobs that always coincides with budget cuts) you suddenly start bitching and moaning about how horrible budget cuts are.

You got what you asked for. The government slashed the budget. People lost their jobs as a result. This is what you wanted. Stop fucking crying about it.

With that said, I went on to inform Mr. Radio Show Host, that if he really wants to get down to brass tacks regarding where I stand on the gay marriage issue, well then, here it is: I am against gay marriage, especially Liza Manelli’s former marriage to David Getz. That was the gayest thing that I have ever seen in my life and it should have never happened.

Sigh… This is just getting tedious.

Not knowing why he was so interested in the gay marriage debacle I asked him, “Why do you care? Do you want to marry a man or something? Do you think you got a shot at Ryan Seacrest?” He was speechless.

“Speechless” is the hip new lingo for this:

As our segment was wrapping up I told him if he wanted someone on his show that’s a staunch supporter of gay marriage then he should invite on some divorce lawyers because they can’t wait for the gay marriages to get a-crankin’.

That’s funny, seeing as divorce lawyers tend to be busiest in states like Oklahoma, where gay marriage is illegal and churches are more common than Starbucks and red dirt. (I don’t say this to demean Oklahoma–I love my home state. I just wish it didn’t contain so many hypocrites and morons.)

In all seriousness, I’m kind of torn on the gay marriage issue

How long is this “seriousness” thing going to last?

I’m split between Ted Nugent’s take on homo-matrimony and Jesus Christ’s opinion on the issue.

Not even one sentence, I see.

Nugent told me a few years back that he didn’t mind gay marriage if: A). We didn’t call it marriage. B). We didn’t have to pay for it via our tax dollars and C). it was only between two good-looking lesbians.

This is why A) nobody gives a fuck about Nugent, B) I wish our tax dollars didn’t go to either of his two marriages (but nobody ever asked me–at least he only married 2 out of the 4 women he’s had children with…), and C) telling the same joke for a 1,067th time doesn’t make it funny.

Hmmm. Interesting, Uncle Ted but what would Jesus do? What’s Christ’s take on the gay marriage conundrum?

No, let’s go back to Nugent. I can almost take him seriously.

I’d like to know because, as a Christian, I probably ought to listen more to Jesus than to the “Motor City Mad” man on such a serious issue, right? Right.

Wrong. You shouldn’t listen to either of them.

According to Matthew 19:4-6 Jesus said, many moons ago when He was walking the mean streets of Galilee, that marriage is a union that God ordained between a man and a woman. He said it. I didn’t. So, if you’re going to get pissy then take it up with the Son of God.

How ’bout I take it up with the bloviating frat boy douchenozzle insisting that I should give a fuck about what this alleged “Son of God” had to say at all?

Now, I would remind those who supposedly take their cue from Jesus that there were gay dudes and dudettes around Him in His day.

Ugh. Just ugh. You are not hip, motherfucker. Stop trying. I’m only 31, and already I’m old enough to know better than to try and talk this way. Just give it up, “dawg”.

It’s not like homosexuality just started showing up during Liberace’s lifetime.

Holy shit balls! Liberace was gay! That’s such a clever pop culture reference!

Gays have been around since the dawn of man. Matter of fact, I think that was the name of the first gay rock band.

Can we please just go back to Ted Nugent? He’s a piece of shit and all, but at least he’s unintentionally funny sometimes. This shit is just becoming intolerable.

Indeed, several cities such as Sodom and Gomorrah celebrated homosexuality, as did ancient Greece and Rome. By the way, what ever happened to those cities and cultures?

They declined, as all cultures eventually do. The decline had nothing to do with homosexuality. In fact, the Roman Empire’s decline actually coincided with its widespread acceptance of Christianity. Not that you care about stupid, uncool things like facts.

The God of Love said, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, in the midst of a culture that contained gays, that when it comes down to what constitutes a marriage in God’s eyes, well … that would be a union that is fundamentally betwixt a guy and a girl.

Lo, doth he bravely proclaim the majority opinion in a society where a minority doth have the temerity to exist! And in public!

But then again … what does Jesus know? Heck … He can’t be smarter than a postmodern twenty-something, can He? Surely, He’s not keener than a radical Leftist. Jesus couldn’t have been shrewder than say, Rosie O’Donnell when it comes to the divine pattern prescribed for the continuity of God’s created order for humanity, right? Huh?

He was certainly not as smart as Thomas Jefferson, and yet Jefferson owned slaves. The man was a product of his times, and no matter how smart he was, he was still wrong on many issues. There’s no reason to think Jesus had any special insights on sexual politics in the 21st century; just like Socrates, smart as he may have been, is not a very good source for erudition on modern geopolitics. And what the fuck is “the divine pattern prescribed for the continuity of God’s created order for humanity”? Theology seems to give people this weird predilection for lapsing into laughable prolixity whenever they want to say something like “Fuck fags” or “Bitches need to get back in the kitchen.”

So, what do you guys think? Was Jesus out to lunch on what constitutes a marriage in God’s eyes or what?

Yes. His lunch was penis.

With all that said, how effectively is Doug Giles reaching America’s youth? Let’s look at some comments on his op-ed…

Ann Anon Wrote: 12 minutes ago (8:57 PM)

 Imagine; in the 50’s I stopped some of my girlfriends from speculating on the relationship between our girl team’s two coaches who were ah, roommates and the subject of homosexuality. A suspicion like that would get them both fired. I told them it was a terrible thing to accuse two nice ladies of without any more proof than a lease in common. They agreed and never mentioned it again. I thought I was really brave to stand up to my fellow students. And now in the year 2013 that makes me a homophobe.

I see he’s locked in the crucial Under 80 demographic.

Georgetwin-In-Pa Wrote: 2 hours ago (6:57 PM)

BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA!!!The FAT PIG, Rosie O’Doughnuts is ALREADY divorced!!!http://www.ihatethemedia.com/rosie-odonnell-kelli-carpenter

Bwahahaha! That totally validates Nugent’s multiple marriages!

uvuvuv Wrote: 3 hours ago (5:41 PM)

if the gays are so wildly accepted, where are the movies? the silly comedy romances? if they were truly so accepted the theaters would have lines 2 blocks long for the gay loves gay movies. so far all we had was broken back mountain. one movie.

The pop culture knowledge is strong with this crowd. I’d tell them about my favorite gay movie, Room in Rome, but I’m having trouble shouting over the gigantic erection I get every time I watch it.

uvuvuv Wrote: 3 hours ago (5:36 PM)

gays are mutants and i think if we throw society over to them we might as well have 6 fingers pride parades or spinal bifida studies in the public schools starting with kindergarten. churches can welcome their new cystic fibrosis members, and the muscular dystrophy legation can petition for acceptance in the nba. after all, fair is fair.

Dear Doug Giles,

This is your audience. You brought this on yourself.

Sincerely,

Wes

P.S. Go fuck yourself.