Stating the Fucking Obvious

There are some times when, very briefly, the light of reason shines in a dull fundamentalist mind. These moments are ephemeral, and quickly yield to the tide of insanity, ignorance and authoritarianism that normally engulfs every thought a fundamentalist thinks, but they are real. The title of this piece from the American (non)Thinker is a perfect encapsulation of this phenomenon.

Why We Will Never Win the Argument Against Gay Marriage by Quoting the Bible

Jay Haug

No shit, Sherlock. I’ll even take your epiphany a step further: You can’t win any argument by quoting the Bible, unless the person you’re arguing with is already an indoctrinated fundigelical chowderhead. This fact is bloody fucking obvious to all human beings except those on the far, far right wing. Or those who are genuinely mentally retarded (at least they have an excuse).

But, I do commend the title for stating something rational and evidence-based. It’s all downhill from here, though.

Is marriage God’s idea?

No.

Yes, of course.

No! It’s not God’s idea. God can’t have any ideas, because God IS an idea, and nothing more. Marriage is a human idea, and the only people who want us to think it’s god’s idea are humans who want to control other human’s private lives.

We are 7 words into this article, and already it's pure, babbling nonsense.

We are 7 words into this article, and already it’s pure, babbling nonsense.

Besides, if marriage really is God’s idea, then shut up and let him handle it, and leave the rest of us alone.

Will we win the argument by quoting Scripture or arguing marriage as a religious institution? I doubt it. Why?

Isn’t the answer, as I said, bloody fucking obvious? If there is a God, and he’s really omnipotent, then he doesn’t need you or anyone else, because he could handle his own problems. If you have to thump your Bibles and shout at people, then obviously your god doesn’t exist and a fortiori can’t do anything. It’s really fucking simple. If there were a god, there would be no need for religion. Only a godless universe could contain religion.

People rarely put much thought into what the word “omnipotent” means. If there were a god, and he were really omnipotent, then everything religion does–all the prayers, all the scripture, all the proselytizing, all the rituals–is utterly pointless.  This world is exactly the way he wants it, if he exists. Or, more likely, he doesn’t exist, and that’s why so many people constantly call out to him in vain.

Because marriage is not a religious institution.

You’ve actually said something reasonable again. Good for you!

In the past I have heard a lot of Christians defending previous behavior in prior marriages by saying that they “were not in a Christian marriage.”

If they put it that way, then they weren’t defending it, per se. Think about it for, like, eight seconds.

But God expects faithfulness from us whether our marriage is Christian or not.

That doesn’t make sense. But why would anyone expect sense from a god-humper?

Marriage is a legal and binding contract that applies to all who enter into it regardless of faith.

Again, no shit. And this is why gay marriage should be legal. Not everyone follows your bullshit belief system. Marriage is about law, and law should be about equality. Equality of genders, equality of races, equality of religions, and equality of sexual orientations. Anything else is injustice.

The truth is that marriage both pre-dates the writings of all major religions and has applied to all people everywhere, religious or not. For centuries many marriages have been performed with no religious undertones at all. Marriage is a universal institution, not a religious one. Secondly, in the west, marriages were performed in secular contexts, often then blessed by the church, until around the 16th century.

Subsequently, secular authorities allowed churches, synagogues and other religious institutions to perform them. These religious institutions still had to conform to secular laws and turn in paperwork to account for these marriages. In a court of law, marriages could be annulled based on never having been consummated.

Holy mothercuntfucking shit, this guy’s actually making sense. He just stated actual facts. Can he now practice rationality–taking evidence based premises and, using logic, deriving true statements from them?

Often property and other matters depended on the fact or lack of consummation, another embarrassing historical fact to advocates of gay marriage, which is an artificial arrangement that can never be consummated.

Nope! He immediately plummets into the shit-strewn depths of mental depravity.

Setting aside the fact that consummation is no longer required by any law in this country, I can’t help but laugh at the fact that he spent two paragraphs basically admitting that marriage is a human construct, and then turned around and condemned gay marriage for being an “artificial arrangement”. Hey, numbskull! Read your own words. Those two previous paragraphs are just one long way of saying “All marriages are artificial.” They are a secular institution created by humans. We make them. We determine how they work. We set the rules for them. They are, by definition, artificial, in that they are the product of human artifice.

There’s nothing embarrassing to gay-marriage advocates about the fact that the rules for marriage used to be different. In fact, that is entirely our point. Yes, it used to be the case that, in some places, marriages were invalid if not consummated. We changed that rule, just like we changed rules about polygamy and treating women as property and child marriages and forced marriages. We can change the rules to marriage if we want. We’ve done it numerous times. Gay marriage is just another instance of changing the rules in order to make marriage more fair and just. It’s that simple.

The radical left pushing gay marriage has two tactics when it comes to ‘religious” arguments about marriage.

Gay marriage is a moderate position. But when you’re as far to the right as this jackass is, everything left of Pat Robertson looks “radical”.

The first is to dismiss any argument that has religious constructs as being out of bounds. In the eyes of many, arguments against gay marriage can be easily dismissed by appealing to “the separation of church and state.”

Obviously. Really. Fucking. Obviously. The church doesn’t control this country. The constitution prohibits that. You can’t make laws based on your religion. Laws must have a secular purpose, or they won’t stand up in court. It’s that fucking simple.

The second is a kind of under-handed appeal to compromise. In this approach, gay marriage proponents argue that “religious marriage” and “secular marriage” are two different matters. One should be governed by the church and the other by the state.

Okay, 1) That’s not a second argument. That is, in fact, exactly the same as the previous argument. And 2) It has nothing to do with “compromise”. Separation of church and state is not a compromise. There’s what the government does, and there’s what the church does. Never the twain shall meet. No compromise.

This is the “half a loaf is better than none” argument.

What’s true of loaves is not always true of brains, unfortunately. This guy might actually be better off as a vegetable. At least he wouldn’t embarrass himself.

Leftists want to govern all “secular marriages” in hopes of returning later to claim the “religious” ones.

No. Liberals don’t want to govern people’s marriages. And honestly I don’t give a fuck about your religious marriages. We want people to be free and equal. We want gays to have the same legal rights as straights. We want the government out of people’s bedrooms and out of women’s wombs.

It’s sanctimonious busybodies like the people at the American (non)Thinker who want to govern marriages by telling consenting adults that they’re not allowed to marry just because they’re the same gender.

Remember that the Obama administration already attempted to compel churches to hire gay clergy, a notion that was shot down by the Supreme Court 9-0 in the Hosanna-Tabor decision in 2012.

This is an outright lie. Here’s what happened in the Hosanna-Tabor decision:

The ruling came in the case of Cheryl Perich, a teacher who complained that Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School in Redford, Mich., violated the Americans With Disabilities Act in 2005 when it fired her after she received a narcolepsy diagnosis.

Got that? Disability, not homosexuality. Haug is lying through his fucking teeth when he says the Obama administration tried to force a church to hire gay ministers. No such thing ever happened.

Our response should not be to argue what the Bible says, though we believe it with all our hearts, but to appeal to the universality of marriage. In other words, we argue on our opponent’s ground, not our own.

On our ground you have nowhere to stand. There is no secular, evidence-based reason to deny gays the right to marry.  The “universality” of marriage is irrelevant. Yes, all societies have some marriage concept. But the concept changes from one society to the next and from one time period to the next. We can change it if we want to. Society does this all the time. It’s only universal in the sense that, in general, there is always SOME concept of marriage at work, regardless of which concept it is.

The key to winning is to keep our arguments to the universality of marriage and not play the religious “half-a-loaf” game with the radical left. Anatomy, history, culture, child development and family health are all on our side.

That shit is so fucking stupid, I think I just had an embolism reading it. Let’s address these items one by one.

Anatomy: What the fuck does anatomy have to do with marriage? Seriously, since when has anyone made anatomy a determining criterion for marriage? Oh, wait, I can think of an instance. They used to ban interracial marriage. So that’s a marriage law based on anatomy (skin). But we changed that and told the racists to fuck off. We can do the same here. There’s no obligation to define marriage in a genital-based manner. In fact, when you think about it (which I know the god-humpers won’t do) defining it that way is actually kinda creepy.

History: History affords numerous examples of the definition of marriage changing to fit contemporary norms. Haug said so himself just a few paragraphs before. Changing marriage won’t cause human civilization to crumble. In fact, we just keep right on going regardless of how marriage is defined. History fucks you in the ass, gay marriage opponents.

Culture: What the fuck does that have to do with anything? That’s such a broad term as to be meaningless in this context. He might as well have said “Things that involve stuff.”

Child development: Numerous psychological studies have found that children raised by gays do just fine. Moreover, even if gays were somehow worse at raising kids, since when have we told people that they can’t be married because their kids turn out bad? Has any marriage EVER been annulled in this country due to child development? I’m not aware of this ever happening. Even if someone goes to jail for how they raise their kids, they still remain married. Child development is just simply irrelevant to the legal question of whether such marriages should be recognized.

Family Health: Once again, there is no evidence that gay families are any worse off than straight families. But evidence isn’t exactly something that god-humpers care much about, which is why they keep regurgitating this tired, falsified argument.

If we stay consistent, informed, humble and resolute, this is an argument we can win.

If you stayed consistent, informed, humble and resolute, you wouldn’t be a fucking fundamentalist.

But remember, our opponents want to fight this on religious grounds. We cannot let them.

No. Abso-fucking-lutely not. I do not want to have this or any legal argument on religious ground. My position is that you can take your Bible, shove it up your tightly puckered asshole and fuck off. Religion should have no bearing in law. None whatsoever. I grow infinitely frustrated with the fact that religion keeps putting its bumpy dick in the law’s pudding. Religion is a waste of time and utterly irrelevant to legal matters. The last thing I want is to have this or any argument on religious grounds.

Ugh. At least I’m done with this guy. Let’s take a look at a few comments on that article, shall we?

commonsensealready

If we can’t use the Bible to defend marriage then by what authority are we going to be able to use to defend children from pedophiles?

The Bible says nothing about pedophiles. But keep using that “common sense” of yours. You might blindly stumble onto something true someday.

bullit56

I’ve run into the “marriage pre-dates religion” argument.

This reminds me that same sex marriage is nothing more than a fad that will never stand the test of time.  If it had any value or usefulness to society it would have been put in place by humans a long time ago, as opposite sex marriage was.

You do realize that that same argument could have been made against ELECTRICITY a hundred years ago or so, right? But keep typing away on that computer of yours…

Manuel Manjarrez

all marriages even in hedonistic societies like the Roman Empire and Greece and pre tokugawa Japan would call gay marriage blasphemy against the gods like Christians say that is also against god’s law in every culture even the promisive ones this would be against societal rules and norms it has always been understood that marriage is between a man and a woman

LOL.

Whiny Whitey just won’t give up

The American (non)Thinker just won’t stop pimping this idea that white people are the real victims of a case in which an unarmed black teenager was stalked and shot to death. Here’s one of the more recent anal spewings they’ve produced:

July 20, 2013

Birth of a Racist

By Sally Zelikovsky

I assume that the title is a deliberate reference to Birth of a Nation, which is still used by the KKK as a promotional tool to this day, 98 years after it came out. At least D. W. Griffith’s horrendously racist piece of hateful propaganda was well-made. In fact, it is, sadly, a legitimate contender for the title of Most Influential Movie Ever. Zelikovsky’s piece, however, is just more of the the poorly written fucking dogshit we’ve come to expect from American (non)Thinker.

When I awoke this morning and looked at myself in the mirror, I realized that I had undergone a fundamental transformation — a  Kafkaesque metamorphosis.  I was no longer myself.  I had become…a racist.

In my junior year as an undergrad I participated in a preceptorial on the works of Kafka. During our discussions of The Trial, one of the other students suggested the idea that some aspects of Kafka’s work represented the gas chambers in the Holocaust. I pointed out that Kafka died in 1924, long before Hitler took power and began the Holocaust. But she insisted on her interpretation, even going so far as to claim that Kafka somehow psychically predicted Zyklon B showers. This was the point when I realized that “Kafkaesque” means whatever the fuck the person using the word wants it to mean.

But there is, ironically, a sort of Kafkaesque quality to Zelikovsky’s little Whiny Whitey tirade. The joke of “The Metamorphosis” is that Gregor Samsa didn’t really change. He always was the spineless vermin that he supposedly transformed into–there actually wasn’t any real metamorphosis in terms of personality. The same is true of Zelikovsky. Being a racist is a Kafkaesque metamorphosis for her. Which is to say, nothing about her really changed. She was already a racist to begin with.

I didn’t do it to myself.  I’ve always been sensitive to race.  I don’t support racism or racists.  I’ve never considered myself racist and don’t think others would consider me a racist.  How could I be one now?

I’m pretty sure others would consider you racist, given what you say later in this article. This appears to be primarily an issue of your self-delusion and narcissism.

I never enslaved anyone, prevented them from working or voting or living in my neighborhood or joining my clubs.

That’s all it takes to be non-racist, right? As long as I don’t own slaves or kick blacks out of my neighborhood, I’m not racist. That’s all it takes. Right? RIGHT??? TELL ME I’M RIGHT SO I CAN FEEL GOOD ABOUT MYSELF!

I don’t think there was any proof that George Zimmerman did either.

There’s also no proof that he had any reason to suspect Trayvon Martin of anything at all. But you’ll be conveniently ignoring that fact, won’t you?

But now I know if I ever cross or injure a black person — no matter how justified my actions might be — there is a presumption that I am a racist.

Only if “justified” means “The unarmed child I shot was black.”

I don’t like it at all.  It isn’t true.  But here I am, non-racist me trapped inside this new racist body I’ve been assigned.  My actions and beliefs are irrelevant.  Society has decreed this is who I am.

Oh, poor you. Society declared you racist, and it makes you feel poopy. Meanwhile, society also declared it okay to kill Trayvon Martin because he…what? What did he do? Walk around at night while black? You’re declaring your feelings to be more important than his life. Fuck you.

Like alien pods taking control over our slumbering bodies, unstoppable forces have gradually been redirecting our programming as a society so that any time a minority is harmed or disliked by a white person, the precipitating cause of the harm or dislike is ipso facto racism.

Euphemism is always the friend of the prude and the whiner. Please note that in the case under consideration, “harmed or disliked” means “stalked without any justification and then shot dead.”

After the Zimmerman verdict, many white people woke up just like me, realizing that we will be deemed haters whenever we interact with non-whites and something goes wrong — no matter what our motivation or innermost thoughts are.

To understand the meaning of “something goes wrong”, see above. And, again, Zelikovsky is claiming that her precious, delicate little “innermost thoughts” are more important than a 17-year-old boy’s life. Fucking horrible, hateful, selfish, racist bitch.

Most of us didn’t grow up this way.

No shit.

Quite the opposite.  I was taught never to hate and only to judge people by their actions and not by their color, race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc

If so, your teachers failed.

Didn’t Martin Luther King say we should judge a man by “the content of his character, not by his color of his skin”?

Didn’t Martin Luther King devote his entire life to opposing people like you?

Use of racism to implement an agenda or get one’s way, has been building over years.

This guy called Martin Luther King may have done it, too.

Anytime you fire someone who is a minority, you must have documentation backing up your non-racist justifications.

I’ve had several jobs and seen people of all races fired. Being able to justify a firing is something a business has to do no matter what.

Even though we are supposed to be a color-blind, post-racial society, groups and individuals force us to think about race all the time.

Classic Whiny Whitey. “By talking about racism, they’re FORCING me to experience the horrible, unutterable suffering of having to THINK!”

We have become a hyper-racial society.  Furthermore, since very few of us want to be labeled with anything as odious as “racist,” we will do anything — including keeping incompetents in our employ — to avoid the moniker.

Or maybe we’ll just construct such excuses in order to make ourselves look like victims.

If you don’t like your black neighbor because you have a personality clash, you are a racist.

Nope. Lot’s of people don’t like Chris Brown. No one has ever been called racist for it. He’s an asshole.

If you complain about a black clerk in a store because she wasn’t helpful, you are a racist.

Nope. I’ve complained about bad service from people who happened to be black. No one ever called me a racist for it.

If you oppose affirmative action, you are a racist.

True.

If you disagree with a black President’s ideology and disapprove of his policies, you most definitely are a racist.

Nope. But it helps your credibility with the right if you are a racist.

If you are a juror in the Trayvon Martin case and find George Zimmerman not guilty, you must be a racist. Heck, the entire system that acquitted Zimmerman is racist. Those shots were fired not out of self-defense but because of racism. And we know that, because Trayvon was black and Zimmerman white.

There is no sane universe in which stalking an unarmed boy–even after a 911 operator told you not to–and then starting a confrontation with him and shooting him should be considered “self defense”. Florida, obviously, is not sane. Zimmerman was not defending himself. He started the confrontation. Trayvon Martin was the one defending himself. If you think differently, I don’t even care if you’re racist or not. You’re just an asshole, plain and simple.

Whether or not he did or did not provoke the confrontation with Trayvon, it’s hard to believe the wimpy George Zimmerman’s last thoughts were “I’m going to kill a black man because I don’t like blacks” as opposed to “This guy is bashing my head in and I better do something before I lose consciousness.”

No. Bullshit. The fact that Zimmerman started the whole thing is very much an issue.

In trials like this — where you have one-on-one action with little else to go on — and you want to prove racism, you are either forced to (1) look at surrounding evidence, statements and circumstances and try to re-construct what you think the state of mind or intent of the accused was, or (2) intuit what the accused was thinking, in other words, jump into his mind and make the leap from assumption to assumption.

While there was a credible eye witness who saw Trayvon beating up Zimmerman,  if hate is to be the crime on trial, then we are compelled to examine the thoughts of the perpetrator and the victim, even though we have no way of ever knowing what they really were.  Until we can read someone’s thoughts as if they were files on a computer, we are treading into dangerous territory.

Fuck you. You’re the one pretending to “intuit” what Zimmerman was thinking. Here are some facts, which neither side of the debate disputes: 1.) Zimmerman was carrying a gun even though no one ever asked him to do this; 2) Trayvon Martin wasn’t hurting anybody; 3) Zimmerman chose to follow him; 4) The 911 operator specifically told him not to do that; 5) Zimmerman ignored this and continued following Martin; 6) Zimmerman was the one who initiated a confrontation between the two; 7) a fight broke out; 8) Zimmerman shot and killed Martin, 9) Martin was UNARMED.

I don’t need to read anyone’s thoughts. Zimmerman was wrong. Period. No one should be allowed to do what he did, even without the race issue.

These are the kind of cases that try men’s souls.

Fuck off.

…the public is unsettled because any one of us, at any time, of any color, could be either Trayvon Martin or George Zimmerman.

Complete and utter bullshit. I can’t be Trayvon Martin, because I am a 32 year old white man. You are a white woman, and therefore also cannot be Trayvon Martin. Society frequently treats young black men as if they’re automatically dangerous–something that doesn’t happen to white men or to women of any race.

On top of all this, some in the public — MSNBC, loonies on the left, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson and the minions they have summoned to protest — want us to further restrict the self-defense laws that protect all of us in these situations.

Bullshit. Zimmerman was not defending himself. He started the fight. He was the aggressor.

This means it would be even harder for you to shoot an intruder or rapist or pedophile when protecting yourself or your family.  This means people will hesitate before coming to the aid of a neighbor or being a Good Samaritan.  This means when someone robs your store at gunpoint, you have to succumb to injury or death.  This means when your daughter or son is raped, they must yield and never fight back because self-defense will no longer be available to them.

Whiny Whitey sure does love some good old fashioned scaremongering. And, no, recognizing the injustice of the Martin case does not mean you have to let your daughters get raped. It just means you can’t stalk and kill unarmed teenage boys. If you consider not being able to stalk and shoot 17 year old black boys to be an infringement on your rights, please fucking fuck yourself with the first sharp object you find.

This would be a return to the lawlessness of the Wild West where anything goes and your only justice is revenge.  Call it feudal, barbaric, mob rule or lawlessness: either way, it is the unraveling of the criminal justice system in America and a giant step back for mankind.

That’s precisely the opposite of what you said the the previous paragraph, you stupid hateful bitch. First you say this will make everyone cowed and submissive–next it’s the Wild Wild West. You don’t have any activity in your anterior cingulate cortex at all, do you?

Do we really want to throw the self-defense baby out with the racism bathwater?

No, but only an idiot would think that those are our only two options.

Most of these cases are admittedly hard to prove — that’s why our system errs on the side of innocence.  It’s better to let a guilty man go free than incarcerate an innocent one.  If you were the accused, believe me, this would be your mantra.

I agree that it’s better to let guilty men go than imprison innocent men. So, let’s talk about all the black men who get railroaded into our prisons by a justice system that–HEY! Where are you going???

I wonder if the race industry has any idea what they are clamoring for by restricting the claim of self-defense.  Black-on-black crime is the overwhelming source of crime against blacks in America.  If the Zimmerman protesters have their way and a black intruder breaks into the home of a black family and is shot dead by the homeowner, the homeowner will more likely be the criminal on trial than the perp, as we have seen in the Ron Dixon case in Brooklyn, where a Jamaican family man killed an intruder (whose race isn’t clear in the reports) and was shockingly sentenced to jail for illegally possessing a gun.

Do I even need to explain how this situation has nothing to do with Zimmerman? (Nota Bene: If you need me to explain, then you’re an imbecile, much like Sally Zelikovsky.)

My heart breaks that slavery, Jim Crow, segregation, the KKK, lynching, and discrimination ever existed.  Every reasonable human being feels this way.

Sure it does. But you know whose hearts don’t break for those things? The commenters on the website where you published this.

This is not exclusive to race.  Gay activists have hijacked the black plight for their own purposes.  Gay students are given special consideration in the college application process to right the wrongs visited upon previous generations of homosexuals.  If you dislike a person who happens to be gay, you are homophobic.  If you disapprove of redefining marriage, you are homophobic.  If the thought of same-sex sexual conduct makes you feel uncomfortable, you are homophobic.  If you think AIDS is a gay disease brought on by lifestyle, you are homophobic.  If you fire anyone who is gay, you are homophobic.

“I can’t understand why every time I restrict the rights of gays I get called homophobic!”

And, as we have seen in the media’s reaction to the Zimmerman case, for many, there is no room for self-defense if the puncher-turned-victim is black and the accused is white.

The media is evil for turning the “puncher” into a victim. Rather, we should treat the SHOOTER as a victim.

You right wing assholes are so very clever–in the Spinal Tap interpretation of clever which actually means stupid. But make no mistake. If you ever punch someone, and then they shoot you in response, all this indignity will vanish in an instant, and you’ll suddenly realize what “proportionate response” means. Especially if the guy you who picked a fight with you is black.

Whiny Whitey, Zimmerman and the company you keep

The brain trust over at The American (non)Thinker really is in a tizzy over the Zimmerman trial. They just keep reaching deeper and deeper into their racist assholes and pulling out every single racist piece of shit they find to smear all over the internet and make the world suck a little more for those of us who don’t need to call ourselves “thinkers” in order to trick people into thinking that we’re non-dumb.

In the wake of the George Zimmerman verdict several black ministers across the country put up signs on their outdoor church billboards criticizing it.

The blog post proceeds to discuss all of TWO churches who did this. The messages on the church signs are admittedly clumsy and poorly worded, but that’s true of a lot of church signs. But that doesn’t make them inaccurate. One church rightly notes that it’s a lot easier to get away with killing a black man than with raping a white woman. The other says it’s now safe to kill black men in “Amerikkka”. Hyperbolic? Yes. An understandable reaction to Zimmerman walking free after killing an unarmed teenager that he stalked and confronted even after being specifically told not to do that? Yes. Perfectly understandable. I would have stated it with less exaggeration, but in principle I see where they’re coming from. If I were a black man, this verdict would give me legitimate concerns about my safety, so I totally get why there are black churches that are freaking out about this.

Of course, churches freaking out and issuing hyperbolic statements of doom is nothing new. Panic and mass hysteria are the bread and butter of fundamentalism. White churches do it when an openly gay person is allowed to teach in a high school. Black churches do it when A TEENAGER IS MURDERED AND HIS KILLER IS SET FREE. One of these is not like the other. One of them is understandable. The other can go fuck itself. If I have to explain to you which is which, just go fucking kill yourself and save the world from the indignity of having to share a planet with you.

Cue Whiny Whitey! Whiny Whitey knows that making white people feel all poopy inside by talking about racism is just as bad as murdering black people. Whiny Whitey knows what all the black people should actually be talking about. Whiny Whitey is generously, charitably offering her advice to black people so that they’ll start talking about what matters (how much the black community sucks) instead of talking about things like their sons getting murdered, which is very hurtful to white people (emphasis added below):

The church responded by saying: “The message on the sign is not a message of hate. It is a message of awakening and call to action. It is a message not intended to divide, but to cause honest reflection in order to make this country a better place for ALL.”

However there was no “honest reflection in order to make this country a better place for ALL.”  Honest reflection demands reflecting on these headlines.

7 shot in attacks on South, West, Southwest sides

Teen Charged In Murder Of 15-Year-Old Boy

The incidents generating these headlines–and similar ones across the country–had nothing to do with the Zimmerman verdict.  Occurring around the time the signs were posted,
all the victims–and all the perpetrators–looked like the sons of Obama.  Many of the murders will be unsolved.

So, sadly, yes, “it is safe to kill black people in Amerikkka.”

Yes, tragically, “You can kill an African American and you will walk down in Florida.”  And across the country.

But, also sadly, I don’t think the pastors of these churches, or Rev Jesse Jackson Senior or Rev Al Sharpton or Attorney General Eric Holder will honestly reflect on why this is so.

They will not reflect or issue “a call to action” on teen age pregnancy, single parent, fatherless homes, crime ridden communities, unemployable adults, uncontrollable schools.

At best there will be more demands for more government aid, make work jobs while blaming racism for all the problems.

And black people will continue to be killed in Amerikkka. (sic) And their black murderers will continue to freely walk.

If Edith C. Fenig were being just a tad more honest, that last sentence would read: “And the black murderers in these UNSOLVED crimes continue to freely walk. It’s a good thing I’m writing for a right wing website so I don’t have to worry about my target audience thinking about this for all of two seconds and realizing what a horrible racist bitch I am.”

The two articles she links to don’t even discuss the race of the perpetrators or the victims in the crimes they describe. Fenig is simply assuming that if it’s a shooting, it must be a black perpetrator. But remember, there’s no racism in America, so we should just stop talking about it! Instead, we should talk about everything that’s wrong with the black community!

What’s especially infuriating to me is that a lot of black activists have brought attention to the problems, like fatherless homes and crime, that plague black neighborhoods. It’s not like black people don’t talk about these things or do anything about them. But these are very difficult problems to solve. Oh, and remember that quote from the last Whiny Whitey article I talked about from American (non)Thinker?

We are all creepy ass crackas now, which was the point of electing a community organizer as President in the first place. It could end up no other way.

So according to American (non)Thinker, black people should only talk about the flaws in their own communities, and black community organizers are evil. Or, in other words, black people should only talk about things that make themselves look bad, and anyone who works to actually improve black people’s lives is bad, so things are just gonna have to stay the way they are, except without white people ever having to acknowledge that racism is real.

“Honest reflection” my bony white ass.

But the racism of American (non)Thinker isn’t my main point. You can learn a lot about a website by its audience. Whiny Whitey’s MO is maintaining that there’s no racism in America, so we should stop talking about it. Of course, this requires at least maintaining the thin veneer of not being racist oneself. But they allow comments on their articles, and this gives us some insight into the type of people they cater to (Hint: They’re racist, racist, racist, racist, racist).

eChien

After 5 years of “My People” Holder, “If I had a Son..” Obama, the knock-out game in St Louis, Beat Whitey Night in Iowa, the skyrocketing, extremely under-reported black -on-white violence , black panther voter intimidation etc….I can truthfully state I NO LONGER CARE what black folks do!!!

The sooner they commit self-genocide, the better.

90% of the blacks have emitted their true colors and it’s all anti-white.

Flame away, but I’m done with the issue!!

You’re worried about being flamed while espousing views that are pretty much typical of the burning cross crowd. Anyone remember that Bill Hicks quote about irony?

Pragmatist • 

Minority groups primarily Blacks are majority in prison for the simple
reason that it is THEY who commit the MAJORITY of the crimes. Black male
‘Youths’ between the ages of 15 and 25 (just like USURPERS ‘son’
Trayvon) who comprise LESS than 2% of the USA’s population nevertheless
commit OVER 55% of all the MURDERS and OVER 65% of all the VIOLENT crime
in the USA.
The most likely cause of death for a
Black Youth is to be killed by another Black Youth and OVER 95% of all
Blacks murdered are murdered by other BLACKS.

CAPS LOCK makes my MADE UP BULLSHIT into TRUTH.

ChesterCurmudgeon

Beat up a white man (or “white” hispanic) and he’s expected not to defend himself and take a beating like a good cracker.

He’s expected not to stalk innocent people and start a confrontation with them.

Ls Santa Hermandad LeChien

The White race is finally awakening from its induced stupor. When we ALL come together our shout will be deafening and heard across the world.

Why is it that I envision this guy as a cross between Rob Liefeld and Timothy McVeigh?

andrew+johnson

A poll was taken recently showing blacks are regarded as the most racist group by the public. I wonder why?

Because it was a made up poll of your Whiny Whitey ass?

TommyGunn

It is safe to kill black kids in Amerikkka. Detroit solves next to none of their black on black murders. Screw the racist black so called leaders. Blackness is their main identity. How pitiful it must be to be them!

The cops (mostly white) aren’t solving murders of blacks! I blame the blacks!

45colt

Some black ministers will jump at the chance to become the new Jeremiah Wright. They may not understand however, the cost of such a move. Their actions may put at risk the lives and safety of many black, white, Hispanic, boys, girls, men and women. Do they want this potential blood on their hands?

White racists might kill blacks! I blame the blacks!

faithgracelove

Let’s not forget the nearly 2000 black babies killed by their own mothers in abortion clinics EVERY DAY in America (please note the correct spelling of this word). It’s hard to take black Christians seriously when they pretend to care about the sanctity of life while so many of their own children are daily sacrificed on the altar of abortion. They have sold their souls to the Democrat party in exchange for government handouts. They have no moral authority to preach to the rest of us.

Black Christians have no voice because they value living, breathing teenage sons over undeveloped fetuses that don’t have brain function yet! I blame blacks and women! (Fuck, at this point, why not throw in some sexism with your overt racism. You’re already a lost cause anyways.)

willmay RedStater

“…….. and certainly not biblical. . . .”

You’re right; it isn’t biblical, but it is certainly koranical.

The muslims see the blacks as “in play” for “reversion”; islam appeals to base emotions of hatred, revenge, unending vendetta, and offers a false sense of superiority to those unwilling to work to become superior.

I think we are witnessing the campaigns of islam and “civil rights” merging.

Of all the things that are wrong with this comment, “work to become superior” stands out the most. He thinks white people are superior, but they worked to become that way, so it’s not racist. That, and the fact that “koranical” is not a word in any language.

Lizzie ChesterCurmudgeon

Asians have been treated just as shabbily as Negroes in American, and much more recently. But not as bad as they were treated in their homeland, so they still come. And we are the better for it. The Asians – Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, Hindus, Koreans – have done very well in America. Negroes would do very well if they emulated them. Until those of Negro heritage realize their fate is largely in their own hands, they will never be free. Too many, even today, have merely exchanged one overseer for another.

Seriously? “Negroes”? What did your great, great, great grandkids get you for your 114th birthday? (Please tell me it wasn’t a “negro”.)

turnipweeda day ago

I’ve had it with being called a racist by racist blacks. A much greater percentage of blacks are highly prejudiced than whites. I’ve been tolerant, understanding, and forgiving, but no more. Whereas I gave blacks the benefit of the doubt, now I won’t. They have always held their own race above justice, peace, right, and wrong, and I have ignored that in the interest of harmony. No more! They have shown their true face, and it is not pretty. God bless the black grownups. I pray they won’t have to suffer for what is in the hearts of their brothers

Gotta wonder why people call this guy racist…

Lizzie flamewarrior7

I think the worst crime against young Negro people is the schools. A good education has pulled many a poor soul out of the ghetto of the mind. Books inspired as well as taught.

Okay. Enough with this “negro” shit. It’s not a racist or offensive term, but it’s definitely archaic. Are you going to call them Hottentots next? Maybe if you actually got an education yourself you’d get with the times.

Kaz All_American_Americana day ago

A little history: the reason the Klan attacked black churches during the Civil Rights era was that “churches” were the gathering place for strategy, tactics and logistical planning for marches, choreographed civil unrest, etc.(Rosa Parks’ disobedience was carefully planned for months before she eventually sat in the front row of the bus. It was never spontaneous as history as tried to claim)

Now, I’m NOT in any way shape, form or fashion, condoning the violence against black churches……just stating some historical facts. Blacks in the ’50s and ’60s felt they could use the sanctity of the church to safely plan marches, etc. Same tactic the Muslims are using today in mosques across the country.

Today, black churches get away with a level of political activity that would get a tax-exempt status yanked from a mostly white or Evangelical church quicker than you could say Lois Lerner.

Unfortunately, what goes on in too many black churches is less preaching of the gospel and more grievance peddling and Democrat Party promotion.

How dare those blacks think they can safely plot to sit in the front of a bus?

This comment seals the deal for me. I can’t go through any more. Suffice it to say, The American (non)Thinker‘s readership is loaded to the gills with drooling racist morons. The type who think whites are the victims because 50 years ago blacks had to hide in their segregated churches to plot out actions like getting on a bus without being discriminated against by whites. Yes, Rosa Parks’ civil disobedience was planned and organized. The fact that such a thing needed to be planned and organized, and what that implies about our society, is lost on these pigfucking inbreds.

Whiny Whitey and the Zimmerman trial

A few months back I coined the term Whiny Whitey to denote those ubiquitous white assholes who claim to be persecuted by the mere discussion of racism in America. And boy oh fucking boy has the Zimmerman trial–and its accompanying controversy over the race issue–brought out the whiniest of whiny whiteys this country has to offer. Exhibit A: C. Edmund Wright at the American “Thinker”.

July 18, 2013

Creep Me Out: Chinese is the ‘New Nigga’?

By C. Edmund Wright

Confused yet? Be warned: the whole article is about as disjointed and non-sequitur as the title, so get used to it.

I confess to being a very confused creepy ass cracka, trying desperately to go New School, as recently elucidated by Rachel Jeantel:

Confession or no, it’s true. You are one fucking confused, racist white fuckwad. He goes on to quote Jeantel’s rather idiotic statement, and compare it to something Richard Pryor said in a 35 year old movie:

Nigga….the whole world say it’s a racist word. …around 2000, 2001 – they change it around. That means a male….any kind of male.  Any kind, (even) Chinese…my Chino…but (say) nig-grrrrrrr – (and I) advise you not to be around black people, because they not gonna have it like that.  – Rachel Jeantel on CNN, July 2013.

Stoney gave bootleg haircuts for 25 cent…..he put a bowl on your head, and he cut around it…made all the niggas look Chinese…that way they could get a job on the railroad. They wouldn’t hire no niggas see. Niggas want real money.  Chinese work for that yang money see…niggas didn’t want that sh_t see”  – Richard Pryor as Mudbone in Miss Rudolph and the Monkey, circa 1978

Remember when Chris Rock did that funny bit on the difference between black people and niggers? And remember how every single fucking white moron on planet Earth immediately took this to be an excuse to start calling black people niggers? You know, those people who are too fucking stupid to understand that Rock was being ironic, and just took him on face value as a cheap excuse to justify their own bigotry? Yeah, this is gonna be one of those situations. Wright isn’t going to throw the word “nigger” around, but he treats these two quotes as a carte blanch to toss out every negative black stereotype his tiny little pea brain can conjure up in the next few paragraphs.

Frankly, I’m not sure how to reconcile these two very disparate views on African-American relationships with Chinese-Americans, just one of the many national puzzles we face in the aftermath of the Zimmerman verdict.

Let’s make something very clear here. Richard Pryor is very funny. C. Edmund Wright is not. Moving on.

And we thought the new class of “white-Hispanic” was confusing.

It’s not confusing to anyone with two neurons to rub together. Hispanic is classified as an ethnicity, not a race. So, yes, someone can be both white and Hispanic. The two are not mutually exclusive, and never have been.

However, in honor of Miss Jeantel, I’m going to do my best to leave “the old school” and join “the new school” – and figure this stuff out.  From what I can tell, my old school ways “creep her out,” so in the spirit of racial sensitivity, reparations, bipartisanship, gender neutrality, sequestration, looking for the union label, compassionate conservatism, Occupy Wall Street, doing it for the children, and no doubt Mother Earth, I really want to get this right – and figure out the new school vernacular. (I know, old school.)

In other words: “I want to heap everything I don’t like onto Jeantel because she’s black and I’m a fucking asshole.”

I’m just a free lance writa after all, and I figure you’ll soon have an honorary degree and be a college professa somewhere – where your Obama Care benefits might cover things like fingernail extensions, paid for by taxes on tanning beds no doubt. Or maybe you’ll be on The View, or the Kardashians, or Tyler Perry’s House of whatever it is.

Black women have crazy fingernails, amiright amiright amiright? And black people elide the “R” at the end of a word! And they’re uneducated and want things like health care. Silly negroes! Nota bene: The above paragraph occurs in an article that will ultimately argue that there is no race problem and liberals just need to shut up about it.

“Freelance” is one word, by the way. That is unless you lance boils for free in addition to being a writer, which I find doubtful. Perhaps you shouldn’t be mocking black people’s supposed lack of education when you yourself seem to be rather lacking in the skills required to do what you get paid to do.

We also know from Miss Jeantel’s information that cracka, as in creepy ass cracka, is not a racist term either, as cracka refers apparently to a cop, of any color — and perhaps, a gay cop at that. Or, in the new school lingo, a cop who is “that kinda way.” For some strange reason, this image reminds me of The Village People. Then again, so does Piers Morgan.

Just in case the racism isn’t enough, he throws in some homophobia against Piers Morgan to boot. And, seriously, the Village People? If you’re going to make a gay joke in your racist article, you could at least come up with one that hasn’t been done a fucking bajillion times already.

But in reality, none of it is really that funny.

No shit.

What this all boils down to is that the trial, and what the jury focused on, was not race. This of course is an inconvenient problem for the booming racial grievance industry, which includes among others Barack Obama, Eric Holder, the NBC family of networks, the Democratic Party, numerous black churches — and of course, Reverends Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. For this community, the Zimmerman trial was about the race, the whole race, and nothing but the race, so help us almighty media.

And now we’re in full on Whiny Whitey mode.

Racists like Wright have been in retreat since the 50s. Since being openly racist is no longer socially acceptable, the strategy today is for racists to pretend that they’ve already lost. Racism is gone, so stop talking about it. If they were to succeed in this, then they might be able to preserve the vestiges of racism that still remain in today’s society.

Of course, lucky for us, racists tend to be fucking imbeciles. They have this bad habit of doing things like stringing together several paragraphs of racist stereotyping, and then following it up with dogshit like this:

Yet NBC’s naked attempt to use this trial to ignite nothing short of a race war is as pre-ordained as it is despicable. It is inevitable because contrary to popular belief and conventional beltway wisdom, the election of Obama was guaranteed to tear our nation apart at some point. The notion that he was some kind of fanciful post racial healer — almost from another galaxy — was absurd from the get go.  No liberal politician, especially a black one, can possibly heal anything racial. That’s right — it’s simply not possible.

Consider that liberal leaders of color mostly seem to come from the grievance wing of racial politics. Thus, as professional agitators and race baiters by definition, their ascension to power will necessarily take on an adversarial tone. There is no way around it.  They have gotten where they are by being adversarial towards all conservatives, Republicans and most Caucasians — and they are not about to change once they grab the reigns of power. Quite the contrary.

According to Wright the problem with racism is blacks in politics, apparently. There’s really no other conclusion that can be reached from the two paragraphs above. If we were to take Wright at his word, then we must conclude that he wants blacks removed from politics.

But, of course, since he’s Mighty Whiny Whitey, he has to portray himself as the victim in all this. When black politicians do something horrible like talk about being black, that’s just being adversarial towards “most Caucasians”. Once again, Whiny Whitey wishes us to believe that blacks talking about being black is actually an attack on whites. Wright takes it even further in declaring that it’s impossible for a black liberal to address any racial problem. He’s declaring that people who talk about racism are whiners while simultaneous spewing some of the most racist whining I’ve heard in a while. And I haven’t even gotten to the part where he declares all black Democrats to be incapable of talking about race in one breath and then in the very next breath accuses them of being “adversarial towards all conservatives, Republicans, and most Caucasians.”

Think of racial tensions as a wound on the nation, and the race agitation industry, the institution that gave us Obama, Sharpton, Jackson and Holder, is in the business of specifically pouring salt into the wound, and generally making sure it festers and never heals. Their efforts are then multiplied by butt-insky white liberals, who project their internal guilt by constantly picking at the scab as well. This scar heals just fine when ignored over time and people just go about their lives, but that dynamic is sort of inconvenient when your cash flow model or your political turn out model is dependent on a continuing flow of blood.

Even his fucking metaphor doesn’t fucking work. Wounds don’t heal by being ignored. That’s a great way to fucking bleed to death, you brain dead dickbucket. Although part of me really is hoping that Wright will get in a car accident and bleed to death because he stupidly thinks he can just wish his sucking chest wound away by pretending it’s not there. (And there’s a big difference between a scab and a scar. If we’re going to call racism a scar, then that metaphorically implies that it will never fully go away. But that’s a bit too close to the truth, now, isn’t it?)

This one paragraph from Wright pretty perfectly encapsulates what Whiny Whitey is all about. Whiny Whitey is the victim because talking about racial issues hurts Whiny Whitey. So we just shouldn’t talk about them, and pretend they’re not there. White people who disagree with Whiny Whitey are actually just full of “white guilt” because, as we all know, white people are always the victim, rather than the perpetrator, of racism. The only way Whiny Whitey will feel good is for all those evil blacks to stop talking about what it’s like to be black. Then we can maintain the wonderful status quo, where *wink wink nudge nudge* white people have it a lot easier than black people–just don’t say that part out loud.

This is known by those who benefit, and there is not a single politician or professional race hustler who’s life will be improved by acknowledging progress in this area. Without the grievance industry, figures like Sheila Jackson Lee, Emanuel Cleaver and John Lewis would be largely irrelevant government employees, representing safe liberal districts in Congress, and heard of by almost no one but their constituents.  Human nature is a powerful force, and people tend to gravitate towards positions that enrich them. Beyond any doubt, it enriches and empowers certain elements to pretend that we are all Mississippi in 1950 now, so those elements exist in a bizarre media/political/community organizing sphere where is it still Mississippi in 1950.

Your welfare for fingernail extensions joke from earlier would be quite at home in a conversation between whites in 1950s Mississippi. Or, hell, your implication in this very paragraph that black politicians are “irrelevant” apart from the racial “grievance industry” for that matter. The evidence that we haven’t come as far as we think from the 1950s is right here in your own fucking article.

The New York Times, the NBC family of networks, many black churches, Hollywood and Big Education, all are ironically part of the progressive universe and yet are stuck in this racial time warp. And this was unavoidable once Obama was elected. Obama in power was always destined to appoint grievance pimps like Van Jones and Eric Holder to positions of authority. That’s who he is, and they are merely extensions of him. The grievance pimps live for only one thing: to finally get even with all the creepy ass crackas. And no, with due respect to Miss Jeantel and Rush Limbaugh, I’m not talking about gay cops, and neither are Obama and Holder.  This is about reparations and getting even. So obsessed are they with this mission that an Hispanic Democrat who tutors black kids and votes for Obama will do for a cracka in a pinch. It goes way beyond that now, though.

We are all creepy ass crackas now, which was the point of electing a community organizer as President in the first place. It could end up no other way.

“Big Education”. The fact that he would use such a term tells us so much about his disposition.

Maybe Mr. Wright should squeeze the word “pimp” into those paragraphs a couple more times, just in case the association between black people and prostitution isn’t obvious enough. I mean, we can’t have people thinking that black people should be associated with any positive things, now, can we?  Nope. When Whiny Whitey talks about blacks, he never fails to find something negative to associate with them. Blacks are vengeance-seeking pimps who hate fine, upstanding, totally-not-racist white people like C. Edmund Wright. It’s a good thing we’ve got brave whiners like the folks at the American (non-)Thinker to stand up to these evil black people who live disproportionately in abject poverty and have historically been on the receiving end of just about every form of racism and discrimination that one can think of! To think that they have the gall to organize their community! Oh, the humanity!

Sorry, Mr. Wright, but I have no interest in creepy ass cracka solidarity. Black people talking about racism does not victimize me or anyone else. You, and every other Whiny Whitey out there, are a fucking embarrassment. Not just to white people, not just to Americans. To humanity. If anyone needs to shut the fuck up, it’s creepy ass crackas like you.

And yes. You are creepy. You are an ass. And by being a Whiny Whitey, you are definitely a cracka. Go fuck yourself.

A failure of irony

Bill Hicks famously said that fundamentalism breeds a lack of irony. Fundamentalists often have extreme difficulty recognizing telling contrasts between what is said and what is implied by the context in which it is said. Often times, this failure can come in multiple layers. Take, for instance, the publication which calls itself American Thinker, which frequently publishes utterly thoughtless dribble that only repeats right wing talking points, such as the piece we’ll be looking at today, in which author Paul Schlichta actually quotes an author without realizing that the author was being ironic.

What’s wrong with Same-Sex Marriage?

By Paul Shlichta

There’s nothing wrong with it. The fact that bigots and fundamentalists keep trying and always failing to make the case that there’s something wrong with it is evidence of this.

This year, June’s wedding bells had a discordant tone, as they ushered in a raft of same-sex marriages.

It’s funny how bigots always feel the need to speak of gay marriage in the most ominous tones, hoping to convince the reader that it’s the fucking scariest thing in the universe. In actuality, it’s utterly innocuous, and will have no effect at all on the vast majority of people. But maybe if we talk about it in Vincent Price voice, and have a Theremin playing in the background, and use a metaphor that invokes Edgar Allan Poe, we can make it scary. OoOOOooooOOooooOOOOooo!

By the way, since when are rafts ushered in by anyone to anything? Did I just miss some recent event where bells usher in rafts?

I hereby invoke a panel of experts — Fr. Thomas Vandenberg, G. K. Chesterton, and Kurt Vonnegut — to explain why such marriages are a dangerous debasement of the concept of marriage.

Bells, ushers, rafts, and now juries? Unmix your metaphors, Mr. Shlichta. You clearly don’t understand how writing works.

And really, Kurt Vonnegut? The agnostic socialist renowned for his transgressive writing that was frequently banned by conservative prudes and moral busybodies? You’re invoking him? This ain’t gonna go well for you.

Fr. Vandenberg’s new book, Rediscovering a Pearl of Great Price , is an inspired exposition of the full meaning of Christian marriage, It should be required reading for couples planning to marry, although some of the passages may come as a surprise:

The greatest gift a husband can give his children is to love their mother, and the greatest gift a mother can give her children is to love their father. That is what will keep the proper balance in the family and make their home environment secure. That is what will free the children from their primary fear, which is to be abandoned by one of their parents. Why do they fear that? Because that is what has happened to so many of their friends at school.

This is clearly bullshit. The greatest gift parents can give their kids is to love their kids. Even parents who hate each other and get divorced can still raise a good child by letting their love for the child overcome whatever disdain they have for each other. I’ve seen it happen, so I know it’s true.

Even if we go along with Vandenberg’s pseudo-philosophical ramblings, how is this a problem for gay couples? If they love each other very much, then they should be fine parents according to this. You have failed to make your point.

Marriage is supposed to have the ambitious goal of providing children with a nurturing and reassuring base from which to learn to face the world. Therefore, parents must not only be good persons, not only a man and a woman (so as to provide the dual role models psychologists say they need), but also so unshakably devoted to each other that their mutual love can withstand all the temptations and shocks that life will hurl at them, as well as the abrasion of living with each other.

You see what Shlichta’s doing here? He’s throwing in “man and woman” as if it’s relevant to Vandenberg’s quote, but his parenthetical justification actually involves something completely different from what he quoted above. Instead of being about the importance of loving each other (which gays are perfectly capable of doing), it’s actually about “dual role models”. As if some other man or other woman couldn’t fulfill that role for them.

To this end, sexual passion and the bewildering differences between the sexes jointly play a vital role.

“Bewildering”? Does a vagina really confuse you that much? I can just imagine Mr. Shlichta at home, staring in utter disbelief as his wife inserts a tampon, muttering to himself, “I…I don’t understand…What’s happening???”

As Chesterton put it:

The differences between a man and a woman are at the best so obstinate and exasperating that they practically cannot be got over unless there is an atmosphere of exaggerated tenderness and mutual interest.  To put the matter in one metaphor, the sexes are two stubborn pieces of iron; if they are to be welded together, it must be while they are red-hot…

Great. More metaphors. Besides, if men and women are so irreconcilably different, doesn’t that mean same sex marriage might be the better option?

Therefore, as Fr. Vandenberg goes on to emphasize, sexual intercourse is not merely a permitted “perk” or a reluctantly tolerated means of procreation but rather a vital and holy part of marriage…

If there’s one thing that makes my skin crawl, it’s a fundamentalist attempting to talk about sex. Seriously, if someone came up to me and said, “I slid my hard cock into her wet pussy, stuck my finger up her ass, and fucked her while she called me ‘daddy’ and cried,” it wouldn’t skeeve me out as much as the sentence quoted above. Not even if he added, “Then I made her lick expired Miracle Whip off my taint.”

…a divinely sanctioned means of demonstrating and intensifying conjugal love to make it withstand the rigors attendant upon raising children.

That’s how you see sex? It makes it easier to raise your kids? Fucking weirdo. How the fuck do you get off calling the gays “perverts” when this is what’s going through your mind when you fuck your wife?

Fortunately, as with all animals, men and women have the proper equipment for such activities.

He means cocks and cunts, which not all animals have.

The corresponding parts of the male and female body interact quite neatly for both mutual pleasure and procreation.

I feel so sorry for any woman you have ever slept with.

Not so for homosexual men and women. Whether or not there is anything wrong with their desires, they simply don’t have the proper apparatus to fulfill them.

This is entirely predicated on you knowing what they desire. You do not. Like all sanctimonious busybodies, you just assume you know what everybody’s business is and insert yourself into it. I’m not gay, but I would bet that if you said this to a gay person, their response would be to tell you to take your proper apparatus and fuck yourself with it.

They must resort to clumsy makeshifts, like cargo cult devotees trying to make airplanes out of straw.

A cargo cult is a phenomenon observed on Pacific islands after WWII. During the war, many islands, inhabited by hunter-gatherer tribes who had little contact with the outside world or modern technology, became the home of make-shift airfields. The soldiers at these airfields sometimes shared what they were flying in with the natives, who referred to it as “cargo”. After the war, the airplanes and soldiers (and cargo) disappeared, and on some islands new religions emerged in which the natives built airplanes out of bamboo and straw to try to make the cargo come back. They obviously had no idea how an airplane actually works. The physicist Richard Feynman used cargo cults as a metaphor for pseudoscience–someone who reconstructs the superficial appearance of something, but has no comprehension of its inner workings. Mr. Shlichta is invoking this idea.

Keep this in mind when he quotes Vonnegut later.

Alternatively, they submit to grotesque operations, trying to alter their bodies to suit their desires. The artificiality of these attempts to mimic normal sexuality will inevitably distort the emotions that arise from them and will tend to adversely affect any children living with them.

You know that part of the Bible where Jesus says, “Judge not, lest ye be judged”? Yeah, Christians just kinda ignore that. They fucking LOVE judging people, and this article is just dripping with judgmental attitude.

You see those transgender people? They’re grotesque! And they’re just trying to mimic MY sexuality, which is totally NORMAL. It’s normal to view sex as primarily geared towards making you raise kids better. I’m normal! They’re the grotesque weird perverted ones!

Homosexuals who engage in such desperate expedients shouldn’t be condemned for wanting to do so. As the psychoanalyst in Kurt Vonnegut’s God Bless You Mr. Rosewater  explained:

Let’s assume that a healthy young man is supposed to be sexually aroused by an attractive woman not his mother or sister. if he’s aroused by other things, another man, say, or an umbrella, or the ostrich boa of the Empress Josephine or a sheep or a corpse or his mother or a stolen garter belt, he is what we call a pervert. Let us hasten on to the admission that every case of perversion is essentially a case of crossed wires…

Vonnegut was being sarcastic, you fucking nitwit. All you have to do is just read a little further down the page to see that. Here’s what immediately follows the Vonnegut quote above:

Mother Nature and Society order a man to take his sex to such and such a place and do thus and so with it. Because of the crossed wires, the unhappy man enthusiastically goes straight to the wrong place, proudly, vigorously does some hideously inappropriate thing; and he can count himself lucky if he is simply crippled for life by a police force rather than killed by a mob.

You see that part about police brutality and lynch mobs at the end? That’s the part where a rational mind reflects on what he/she read before and realizes it shouldn’t be taken on face value, that Vonnegut is actually making a quite different point than what a literal reading of the words might indicate. It’s called fucking irony. But for our noble busybodies at the American Thinker, that just doesn’t register with them. They see “pervert” and their feeble minds go no further.

In fact, there is neurological evidence that at least some homosexuals are wired differently and cannot help their proclivities. Others contend that homosexuality may be one of the aftereffects of sexual abuse during childhood. In recognition of such factors, the Catechism of the Catholic Church proposes the apparent paradox of condemning homosexual acts while urging that people afflicted with homosexuality be treated with sympathy.

Every major psychiatric organization has reached a consensus that homosexuality is not dangerous and should not be treated as a disorder. So everything in this paragraph is pseudoscientific bullshit that has no bearing on modern psychological medicine.

But we cannot debase the whole concept of sex and marriage merely to oblige them. The objective of what a gay activist has called the “”war we’ve already won” is to reduce marriage to a lowest-common-denominator status that will inevitably include polygamy, which is already being touted on ABC-TV as  “normal” and being campaigned for in Canada. That’s too high a price to pay for making homosexuals feel better about themselves.

None of this follows from anything you’ve said above. Not a single bit of it can be logically inferred from anything that proceeds it in the article. It’s just yet another bigot declaring by fiat that gays are evil because imaginary Jesus says so.

And the gay marriage initiative is not about making gays feel better about themselves. It’s about treating them like humans who have the same rights as other humans. Honestly, I don’t give a fuck about how they feel. All I care about is treating people equally.

Unfortunately, the institution of marriage is currently being attacked by several forces that, deliberately or inadvertently, are destroying it and thereby undermining our society:

  • The current fad of cohabitation. Single mothers usually do not assume this role voluntarily but are forced to do so by the perfidy and selfishness of men who desert them when they become pregnant. In consequence, the children suffer from the absence of a father and seek a male role model and mentor, often by joining gangs.
  • Ultrafeminists, who regard men as “the enemy”. They encourage the idea that men are unnecessary for raising children and regard lesbian couples as the new “normal”. To this end, they cite psychological studies that fall apart when examined.
  • Our protosocialist state, which seeks to diminish the concept of family in order to make the state the primary “parent”. This may be one reason why liberals are so enthusiastic about same-sex marriage — because it weakens the status and importance of families.

Now we’ve degenerated into the all-too-typical right wing freak out about how gays and feminists will destroy the universe. I especially love how his first point (aside from confusing cohabitation with single mothers) puts all the blame on men, and then his second point puts all the blame on “ultrafeminists” who supposedly hate men. Make up your mind, assfuck.

But whatever the causes, the debasement of the concepts of marriage and family will destroy us. Lycurgus achieved it in ancient Sparta and produced a nation of racist brutes. The USSR tried it, with partial success, in the last century and begat a dysfunctional society that is now painfully groping its way back to normality. These are hardly encouraging precedents. The legalization of same-sex marriage is a decisive step down that slippery slope.

Neither the Spartans nor the Soviets legalized gay marriage. And, in fact, both society’s were actually quite conservative. And Lycurgus, as our primary source Plutarch even admits, probably never even existed. He’s a legend, cobbled together from the storied lives of several different Spartan kings.

Of course, I’m not at all surprised that your ultimate evidence is fables and legends. That’s all religion is good for.

Do you like watching movies about gladiators?

Well, let’s see here. I’m just gonna dig through some of the shitty right wing blogs I check from time to time and see what idiotic fucknugget pops up. Haven’t been to The American “Thinker” in a while, might as well see what they’re up to. Hmmm… What’s this?

The Gladiator: Sarah Palin, We Need You Back in the Arena

By Lloyd Marcus

Oh, this is gonna be good.

Hello, calling Sarah Palin!  Has anyone seen her?  Where is she?  Has Sarah Palin left the building?  Is the Palin magic gone forever?

You haven’t seen her because you’ve got your TV permanently tuned to Fox News, your only source of information, and they canned her ass. [See UPDATE below.]

No.  The Palin charisma and mass appeal are still alive and well.

Is “mass appeal” another one of those terms that means something totally different to godbots than it does to the rest of the universe?

Certain people are born gifted with “It” — something that compels you to watch them.

Please note that this mystical “It” also applies to Honey Boo Boo.

Sarah Palin is one such individual.  Though politically tarred, feathered, and run out of town on a rail by the left and a few spineless Republicans, I pray for the day when my favorite gladiator Sarah Palin returns to the arena.

I can never hear the word “gladiator” without thinking about this. And now I wish Sarah Palin would just move to Australia so they have to deal with her shit and we can be left in peace.

Unquestionably, the vitriolic attacks on Palin and her family, the betrayals by Republicans and associates left Palin severely wounded.  Who among us could endure and survive the full weight of the MSM launched to destroy you?  It is quite understandable and reasonable for Palin to say, Forget this.  Todd and I are goin’ fishin’.

Let me interject: The WELL DESERVED vitriolic attacks. Some people fully deserve to be ruthlessly mocked and ridiculed, and Sarah Palin joined that club the moment she first opened her big, stupid mouth in public.

But, the Bible says, to whom much is given, much is required.

Something tells me you’ll be conveniently forgetting about this Bible verse very soon…

While Palin has not reported seeing a burning bush,

That’s understandable. Not many people would want to publicly announce they have crabs.

At the moment, there is no one on the national stage who inspires the masses to follow and act on their convictions like Palin.

No one does it like her. Mostly in the sense that a dried up catfish with a pencil stuck through it would do a better job of it than she has.

Please allow me to share my personal testimony of the “Palin Effect.”

She gave you crabs?

From inside our Tea Party Express tour bus, as we approached the site, I saw seniors parked a mile away, making their way to the event using walkers.  It gave me goosebumps.  Obviously, this woman, Sarah Palin, represented the America they loved and feared was slipping away.

That reminds me of another Bible verse that Christians like to forget whenever it’s convenient.

Despite all of the scandals, lies, outrageous government overreaches, and abuses of our civil liberties under this administration, Obama still gets a pass in the minds of far too many ill-informed Americans.  Decades of dumbing down students have produced exactly what the left wants: sheep totally dependent on government, clueless regarding U.S. history and the cost and value of freedom.

The only way to stop dumbing down America is to elect the dumbest politician to run for office since Orgg the caveman accidentally castrated himself while running for Chief Rock Stacker.

And you don’t get to call other people sheep while writing a fucking sycophantic puff piece about Palin with a barely concealed boner.

So Obama can ignore the Constitution and do whatever he pleases as long as the food stamps, disability checks, welfare checks, and free phones keep coming.  Under Obama, an unprecedented half of the country are eating, talking on their phones, and driving without working for it — a Democratic party dream come true.

There we go repeating that same fucking bullshit lie that Romney inflicted on the world last year. There are lies, then there are damned lies, then there’s typical Religious Right talking points.

And seriously, eating? You object to them EATING? You’d rather poor people just starve? Along with their children? Hell, the godhumpers get more vile every day.

Anyways, this whole paragraph is just gonna go down the memory hole, because in the very next paragraph…

I asked friends at dinner, “How did Ronald Reagan win in a landslide touting Conservatism?  Jerry Falwell and his Moral Majority was said to have figured in the mix.  Americans, for the most part, are a moral and just people.

You just called half of Americans dirty freeloading bastards for the sin of not starving. And now you’re saying most Americans are moral? Do I need to explain to you what the word “most” means?

I was a 20-something black kid from the East Baltimore projects back then.  I knew nothing about politics.  All I knew was that every time I heard President Reagan speak, I felt good about my country and myself.  Reagan made me feel I could achieve and contribute to this wonderful country, in which I was blessed to be born, called America.

So you were utterly ignorant, but Reagan made you feel all warm and fucking fuzzy inside, and that was all you needed to vote for him. How, exactly, is it our side that’s dumbing the country down?

Oh, and by the way–YOU LIVED IN THE PROJECTS??? As in public housing? As in paid for by tax dollars? And you have the fucking gall to tell poor people today to starve rather than get a little assistance?

GO.

FUCK.

YOURSELF.

Where are the voices inspiring folks to love and contribute to the greatness of their country?  I know, I know.  Such talk sounds corny and naïve today.  In Obama’s America, signing up for government assistance and approving of government confiscating the earnings of high achievers for redistribution is the new definition of compassion and patriotism.

Hey, remember that Bible verse about how to whom much is given, much is required? No? Didn’t think so.

We need a hero, folks — someone willing to stand up for America, boldly waving our flag and touting the virtues of hard work, self-reliance, family, God, and country.

We’ve already got a fuckton of those hypocritical, jingoistic shitbiscuits running around. We don’t need any more.

I believe that Sarah Palin can pull it off.

No need to be so up front about it. I already knew you wanted her to jerk you off.

Reading my own words sound a bit corny even to me.

You are so motherfucking far beyond corny that the light from corny would take a million years to reach you.

Sarah Palin, please come back.  Run for office.  We long to cheer you on as our gladiator in the arena.

Plus it would be comedy gold.

________________________________

UPDATE (6/19/13): Well, she was canned until a few days ago when Fox News inexplicably brought her back. Un-fucking-believable. We just can’t get rid of this ass-barnacle of a human being. It seems that some malevolent force is determined to keep her hideous face in the news to torture all right-thinking people in perpetuity. However, we can find some solace in this excellent Daily Show episode.

Tragedy in White Suburbia

Am I reveling too much in the continued right wing meltdown following Obama’s win? Probably, but I’m gonna keep doing it anyways. Up next, the good ol’ American Thinker. Remember them? The ones repeatedly publishing op-eds predicting a Romney landslide win? Yeah, well, you can imagine they took the shattering of their illusions pretty hard.
And, oh, how they did. 🙂 Mary Durbin provides a particularly amusing reaction:

I am not ashamed to admit it: I cried the night of the election.

It’s probably time for you to start reevaluating what you are and are not ashamed of.

I cried even before the election was called, because I knew in my heart that it was over.

Well, your heart needs to have a conversation with your colleague William Gensert’s gut, which was telling him over and over that Romney was gonna win in a landslide. (Curiously, Gensert hasn’t posted a single op-ed after Nov 6.)

I cried for my country, I cried for my faith, and I cried for the loss of what I imagined would be a life free from constant worry over what the government was going to do next to reduce liberty and freedom.

1.) Your country will be fine.

2.) Your faith sucks.

3.) Really? So when a Republican is in office, you are free from constant worry about loss of liberty? Well, that explains how Bush was able to get away with so much bullshit.

This election cycle, I saw far fewer Obama bumper stickers, so during my morning-after commute it was not easy to spot the perpetrators of my despair.

But it’s pretty damn easy to spot the perpetrators of stilted language and maudlin self-pity.

I cried at work, telling coworkers it was my allergies.  This is something that is very believable in Florida.

Other things that are very believable in Florida:

  • The State Legislature collectively forgot to wear pants for two weeks before anyone noticed.
  • Jeb Bush was hospitalized after accepting a challenge that he couldn’t eat 5 gallons of expired mayonnaise.
  • A local Tea Party elected an alligator with a cross glued to it to the school board.
  • Said alligator prevented Advanced Creationism from being a required course in Florida public schools by eating the other school board members.
  • Said alligator was then shot. Not because he ate the school board, but because the shooter thought that having scales and walking on all fours were popular in African American fashion.
  • A landslide popular vote mandated that a fence be built on the border with the Gulf of Mexico.
  • None of these voters noticed when said fence was never built, but $10 million was somehow spent on it anyways.

Honestly, the best thing I can say about Florida is “It ain’t Texas.”

But then I started noticing something.  The other night, I picked up dinner at one of the many roadside barbeque stands that permeate the part of Tampa where I live.  The owner seemed positive and upbeat.  I thought, “Does he not know how hard it is going to be to expand his business?  Does he understand how difficult the government is going to make it for him to keep on smoking all those chickens and ribs and mullet?”  (Remember, this is Florida.)

I thought Florida was known for another kind of mullet, one which I would gladly ban.

But, I don’t really have a leg to stand on here. I’m from Oklahoma, where it is common to find–I shit you not–Barbecue Bologna. Compared to that, barbecue mullet doesn’t have shit on the WTF-o-meter.

I went to the supermarket, and my favorites cashier waved hello and said, “How are you doing, sweetheart?”  Again, I asked myself, “Doesn’t she know what is going to happen to her health care?”

So you at least noticed that the election of Obama hasn’t immediately transformed your dull, homogenous suburban lifestyle into a dystopian hellscape. I guess that’s progress.

I went to a meeting last weekend at a hotel near the airport.  When I walked in, I saw the lobby full of guests whom I easily identified, thanks to my near-obsession with TV bridal reality shows, as members of wedding parties.  As they were all dashing off to make last-minute preparations, I thought, “There are still weddings?  These people must have faith in the future if they still want to get married…right?”

We still have reality TV and marital frivolities! Obama can’t take that away! Unless the gays destroy marriage AND reality TV!

After my meeting, I went to a nearby mall.  When I walked in, I saw that the Christmas decorations were already up.  I am one of those people who find Christmas decorations in early November an abomination and disrespectful to the next holiday in line, Thanksgiving…but this time, I found it comforting to see Santa Claus (the real one — not the government-issued one) sitting in his overstuffed chair, waiting for the youngest among us to make their special requests.

No need to worry. Overthrowing Thanksgiving was a preemptive move in the War on Christmas. Christmas joining homosexuality in the Abomination Club was just an unfortunate bit of collateral damage. Luckily, the Real Santa Claus survived, just to insure that the suburbs are still tolerably monotonous and superficial for you shallow-minded soccer moms.

So to paraphrase Dr. Seuss and the Grinch, the election didn’t stop Christmas from coming.  It’s coming.

“Paraphrase” doesn’t mean “Say something that has nothing to do with and doesn’t even make sense.”

I went to the food court and saw a long line at Chick-fil-A.  I joined it.  As usual, I received great service.  The young man waiting on me was from the demographic that has been so constantly scrutinized of late.  I said to myself, “Please , please don’t grow up to be a Democrat.”  Hopefully he will learn, if he hasn’t already, that working hard and doing a good job are the true ways to success.

Yeah, that menial job at Chick-fil-A certainly has him going places. I’m sure he’s mighty happy to be serving self-centered bitches like you who support policies that will make it very difficult for him to do anything more with his life. That’s the American Dream, after all: Working your ass off for minimum wage so that privileged suburbanites who don’t give a fuck about you can rest easy knowing that their mass produced chicken sandwiches are preventing gays from experiencing the marital bliss they watch on reality TV.

While I ate my lunch, I noticed the family sitting at the table next to me.  There was a little girl who seemed utterly enthralled with the dollar bill she was holding.  I guessed that she hadn’t yet realized how little it buys today!  She was showing it off to her family and kept reading aloud the words “The United States of America.”

Ah, yes. It’s so quaintly beautiful to see those first, innocent buds of greed and jingoism before they’re old enough to understand inflation.

Of course, I started to cry again (I need to buy stock in Kimberly-Clark).

The image of a Republican soccer mom weeping silently over her fag-hating sandwich in a dull, lifeless suburban food court is the kind of thing that gives me hope in this world.

And then, finally, I remembered something.  I remembered that despite everything, we Americans are a strong people, and we will find ways to get on with our lives.  Life may not be the life many us wanted or voted for on November 6, 2012, but life will go on.

You put us through 8 years of Bush. You get no fucking sympathy from me.

“Life will go on.” Jesus titty-motor-boating Christ. Yes, Mary Durbin, you can still eat cheap sandwiches in a food court in suburban Tampa. You can still watch TV. You can still look at Christmas decorations at the mall. You can still live your dull, pointless, myopic existence without a hint of self-awareness. Despite all the scare-mongering and demagoguery that your sponge-like micro-brain absorbs on a regular basis, it remains true that middle class, straight, Christian, Southern suburbanites like you are the people least likely to have their daily lives altered by anything Obama does. I realize that processing cognitive dissonance is difficult for people like you, but think about this: You are at least partially aware of the fact that your daily life will go on mostly unchanged with Obama as President. But you oppose Obama because his policies might make life easier for people who are different from you–namely, poor people and gays. And helping poor people and gays might mean that millionaires (not you) have to pay slightly more taxes–not enough to make them no longer millionaires, but more than they want to. And WHO exactly is telling you that you should oppose Obama because he’s going to destroy your treasured Christmas decorations and chicken sandwiches? The ones he clearly has NOT destroyed?