Intelligent Imbecility

There are lots of ways to promote bigotry and ignorance. The easiest and most obvious is to just run around shouting “Fuck faggots!”, which accounts for 90% of internet traffic. Another is to declare that you heard from an invisible, silent being that exists…somewhere…that faggots are bad and don’t deserve equal rights. Another is to assert that it’s just your belief that faggots are evil, and how dare you insult my beliefs (which are insulting to other people) (oh, and I want my beliefs enshrined in the law)?

The problem with these approaches is that the public is catching on to them. Stupid can’t hide for long, and more and more people are saying “Fuck your beliefs” and giving gays equal rights anyways. “Damn it!” says the bigot. “I have to deny people their rights, but I can’t do it by being an obvious dumbfuck any more! Whatever shall I do?” The answer is provided, luckily for the bigot, in today’s Washington Post. You gotta be a sneaky dumbshit bigot. You gotta take what you think the opposition believes (which is, of course, nothing like what the opposition actually believes–you are a dumbfuck bigot after all!) and turn it around on them! You gotta be, not really clever, but what you imagine to be clever in your tiny little pea brain. You gotta be an intelligent imbecile.

Behold.

Is gay marriage really progressive?

  • By Norman Leahy and Paul Goldman
  • February 20 at 6:38 am

Ha! Take that, liberals! We put a question mark in our title! That should fill you with doubt about your own beliefs. ‘Cause that’s how intelligent imbecility works. We’re tricky and shit.

Same-sex marriage advocates, and their lawyers, cite Jefferson’s “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness” to underscore everyone’s right to marry without state interference. Last week, they successfully challenged Virginia’s constitutional ban on same-sex marriages. Given current legal trends, there seems little doubt that the Supreme Court will ultimately agree with U.S. District Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen’s ruling. Gay rights advocates believe this ruling is a major progressive advance.

I’m a gay rights advocate, and when I heard about that ruling the first thing I thought was, “Major Progressive Advance.” Except for the part where I never thought any such thing. Actually, my first thought was, “The bigots are gonna shit themselves,” and boy oh boy was I right.

We ask: Why is this progressive?

No you don’t. You never asked that. This is just a bullshit rhetorical device for you to try to make yourselves look smart while spouting idiocy. The only people you’re fooling with this shit are people who were already dumb enough to agree with you before you even wrote a word.

Or put another way: Why is giving the government more power over your personal life, as opposed to less, considered progressive?

Why are loaded, deliberately misleading questions the things you beat your wife with?

Oh, I’m sorry, was that out of line? I should have known you would never beat your wife. You just take out your frustrations by raping and murdering a hooker. My bad.

See? I can make up passive aggressive dogshit about other people and spout it without blinking! Publish me, Washington Post!

The government gives legal benefits to people in marriages that the government recognizes. All gay people are asking is that they receive the same benefits. It’s not that fucking hard to understand. This doesn’t involve government controlling their personal lives. But singling out gay people specifically to ban them from certain benefits? That DOES involve government interfering with people’s personal lives. No fucking duh.

Ironically, it may turn out that gay marriage advocates are trying to further cement a dangerous philosophical trend that they would normally see as conservative, retrogressive or even reactionary.

Ironically, there’s no irony here, since you’re just pulling this out of your tightly puckered asshole.

Gay marriage advocates believe the progressive position is to require every marriage to get the same governmental blessing. But this is actually not a progressive or liberating posture at all.

The right approach for those who believe in “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” freed from government control is self-evident: no government control over marriage.

This is becoming the new right wing way to promote straight privilege. They ignore all the legal benefits of marriage (hospital visitation, shared tax forms, tax benefits, etc.) and act like marriage is nothing but a word. But I guarantee you–if either of these guys’ wife is in the hospital, they’ll damn sure take advantage of the “government control” that lets them visit her. And when these two fucking nitwits file their taxes, they’ll damn sure let “government control” give them some marriage-based tax credits.

Which is to say, they’ll glad spew empty words about “government control over marriage” in a rag like the WaPo. That’s just words. But the moment it affects their real lives, everything they’re saying goes right down the shitter.

The same-sex marriage position requires first accepting the government’s right to sanction marriage.

It obviously doesn’t. It requires recognizing that straight couples get benefits that gays don’t. It requires recognizing how fucking unfair that is. It also requires knowing a right wing bullshit artist when you see one–and I see two that the WaPo decided deserved to have their verbal fecal matter spread to the entire country.

Moreover, advocates don’t merely agree to give government this power, they accept a state’s right to discriminate. The federal court decision overturning Virginia’s gay marriage ban is premised on the state failing to provide a sufficient reason for discriminating between couples wanting to get hitched. This presupposes the right of the government to sanction marriage. Ironically, this is the position of the supposedly conservative traditional marriage defenders.

Go back and read that paragraph again. The first sentence is supposed to tell us what the latter sentences will demonstrate. Read it. The first sentence has absolutely nothing to do with anything that follows. Read it again. I challenge you to explain how the first sentence is even tangentially related to anything that follows.

Keep in mind: The WaPo published this illogical garbage. And the WaPo is purportedly a respectable newspaper. Yeah, fucking right.

But the really important point to keep in mind here is PRIVILEGE. These two fuckheads have probably taken advantage of marriage rights numerous times.  They just take it for granted. Pick up your kids from school? Sure, Mommy and Daddy are married, and legally that’s all that’s required to retrieve your kids from school (even if they aren’t your biological children). They don’t even think about it. The only reason they can flippantly tell gays “Just don’t get legal recognition” is that they’re so used to legal recognition that they can’t even realize they have it any more.

Trust me, no married couple would ever voluntarily give up the legal benefits they enjoy. Norman Leahy and Paul Goldman are no different.

While the Supreme Court has made other important rulings on marriage in the past, no jurist ever suggested disagreement with state laws banning same-sex marriage — until recently.

It’s never been done before, so why do it now?

(Nota bene: This exact same argument could have been made against inter-racial marriage 60 years ago.)

Gay rights lawyers say such decisions were wrong, surely by today’s standards. We ask: What is progressive about conditioning the state’s right to sanction marriage on changeable judicial attitudes?

You don’t ask that. You’re not asking anything. Stop pretending that you’re capable of thought.

Anyone who reads this can see exactly what you’re doing. The bigots have lost the gay marriage debate on one front after another, so now you just wanna take your ball and go home. Just end legal marriage entirely! That oughta go over well! I’m sure the step-fathers out there who no longer have legal guardianship over their step-children won’t mind at all! Right wingers are smart!

The more principled approach, which is consistent across the philosophical spectrum, is leaving marriage to the religious and family institutions from whence it came.

What philosophical spectrum? Is there even such a thing as a philosophical spectrum? I’ve been studying philosophy since 2000, and I’ve never encountered any such thing.

Privilege is again at play here. What Leahy and Goldman are really asking is, “Can’t we just let the church (which already excludes gays) give us all the benefits and tell everyone who’s not like us to fuck off?” No, shithead, you can’t. It doesn’t work that way. Marriage is a civil contract. It has been for a very long time. And I know, you really want all the benefits to yourself, even if sharing them with others won’t cost you a thing. That’s because you’re suffering from a common disorder known in psychiatry as Being An Asshole.

Marriage existed long before there were government bureaucrats looking to raise revenue by collecting license fees.

Yeah, that’s why the government recognizes marriages. The tiny fees they get from licenses.

https://i0.wp.com/affordablehousinginstitute.org/blogs/us/wp-content/uploads/brilliant_cigar1.jpg

If a person meets whatever common sense, minimal legal requirements are established for people to wed — such as those related to age, health, mental capacity or banning incest — why should government approval be required?

That’s what the gays are asking. You seem to have missed this part.

You see, STRAIGHT marriages don’t require government approval. Wanna get married? Sure, why not. It’s not like there’s an exam. As long as you’re straight, you get married. Simple as that.

All gays are asking is that they be treated the same way.

If gay rights advocates truly believe marriage is a protected, inalienable right, then they should be in court arguing against state-sanctioned marriage per se.

It’s not that gays are destroying traditional marriage, it’s that they SHOULD be destroying traditional marriage. See how subtle and nuanced these bigots are becoming?

What about the traditional marriage position – that defining these unions is up to the states and that states have a vested interest in promoting traditional families? It runs counter to the conservative belief in limited government.

The true conservative position should be to let the church control everything. Christian hegemony for the win!

Same-sex couples are generally no better or worse at parenting than those with different sexual orientations. Limiting marriage on procreation grounds, even if legal, is a slippery slope that would trample the Constitution and personal liberties in a way worthy of China, not America.

That’s the only point in this op-ed where these two say anything even vaguely rational. But then they fuck it up by going, “China! Amiright?”

Most important, a marriage license is derivative, not the basic right at issue. If the right to marry is inalienable, then the government needs to stop seeing it as another revenue raiser or privilege creator.

We should just leave it to religious institutions! They secure privilege much more hatefully than the government ever could!

In practical effect, all same-sex marriage proponents are claiming is their inalienable right to be required to pay a marriage fee like everyone else.

How the fuck did this sentence make it past an editor?

All they’re claiming is a fee? So hospital visitation isn’t part of legal marriage? And neither is guardianship of children? What about inheritance rights? Adoption? Tax credits? Spouse benefits for insurance plans?

No, none of that exists. Well, it all does exist, but Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-Dumb are so caught up in their own privilege that they stupidly don’t even realize how much legal benefit they get from marriage. They think they can just erase the entire legal structure of the marriage cake and still get all the frosting. Well, sorry, fucknuts. It doesn’t work that way. If you actually got your way, you’d have no legal basis on which to claim you can visit your wife if she’s dying in the hospital. Think about that–if you ever even think at all.

Look, I’m not saying all conservatives are stupid. I’ve met a few smart ones. But too many of them are complete idiots. And the worst type of conservative idiot is the one who masters the English language just enough to make an argument that might be mistaken for rational human thought if viewed from a thousand miles away through layers of skin-melting fog. In other words, the one who’s able to gussy up his imbecility with just enough false erudition to be published in an overrated rag like the WaPo.

Advertisements

Thinning the Herd

Remember a couple days ago when I celebrated the bigots whose boycotts effectively remove them from the conversation? Well, there may be no god, but somewhere out there is an ultra-powerful Super Atheist who saw that post and deigned to have a piece of pure god-humper gold fall right into my comedy lap. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Trestin Meacham.

I’ve been in contact with Trestin Meacham, at some level or another, since probably 2009.   Trestin was a blogger, and has also run for political office, after his service in the US Military.  He is devout in his faith, and loyal to his country.

Yeah, sure, whatever. Get to the good part.

He contacted me yesterday to let me know that he was beginning a fast in support of traditional marriage.

AAAHH HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

A fast! A fucking fast! He hates gays so much, he’s boycotting food! Now we have indisputable proof that “devout in faith” really means “self-destructively imbecilic.”

Here is his commentary…After explaining the situation to my family, I have decided to pursue the following course of action. After my dinner tonight, I will begin a fast which will not end until all counties in Utah stop issuing marriage licenses and performing marriages for same sex couples.

Buh bye!

God, would I have loved to be a fly on the wall when he explained this idiocy to his family. “Hey, wife and kids, daddy’s gonna slowly waste away and die, leaving you traumatized and fatherless, in order to preserve traditional marriage. Fuck faggots!”

Due to the rogue judge refusing to issue a stay, this will likely take several days.

Or, it might just never happen. In which case, hey, one less bigot on planet Earth. Seems like a win-win to me.

I cannot stand by and do nothing while this evil takes root in my home.

Couple of things:

1.) A hunger strike is doing nothing by definition.

2.) How exactly does this affect your home in any way, shape or form?

Some things in life are worth sacrificing one’s heath and even life if necessary.

Here’s the thing, Trestin. Hunger strikes only really work when anybody gives a shit about whether you live or die. Not just anybody can go on a hunger strike, and you certainly don’t fit the bill. Go ahead and kill yourself, bigot. The only people who will care are those misguided enough to be your friends or unfortunate enough to be your family. The rest of the world’s just gonna keep right on going as if you never fucking existed.

I am but a man, and do not have the money and power to make any noticeable influence in our corrupt system. Never the less, I can do something that people in power cannot ignore.

Pretty sure they’re perfectly capable of ignoring you. But keep striking that martyr pose and painting yourself as the big fucking hero. That’s what this is all about in the end, isn’t it? Just a way for you to stroke your pathetic ego-cock.

I do not expect anyone to join me in a fast which has no end in sight, but if you wish to join me in a limited fast it would be a big help.

This is also known as the Litmus Test for Stupidity. But, please, bigots, join him! I certainly ain’t gonna stop you.

Trestin is making a stand.  At the very least, we can help him by raising awareness into the issue.   He is standing up to the PC lobby, and those that would silence and references to God’s truth about traditional marriage and morality.

God-humpers tend to be grammatically challenged, don’t they?

 

Sadly, I’m quite certain that Trestin has no intention of actually following through with this and starving himself to death. It’s just a big, ostentatious, self-congratulatory ego trip, and nothing more. He’ll wallow in the temporary infamy he gains from this, then quietly start eating again once everyone forgets about him and no one is watching. Fucking pathetic. And fucking typical.

The guy dressed like a lady doth protest too much

You know what Christians love talking about? Love. They even love how much they love talking about love. A thousand hippie monkeys at a thousand Valentine typewriters couldn’t talk about love as much as Christians do. Led Zepplin’s “Whole Lotta Love” doesn’t talk about love enough for them. If the English language consisted solely of the word “Love”, it still wouldn’t be possible to talk about love as much as Christians talk about love.

So, yeah, they talk about it. But do they actually love that much?

Fuck no. In fact, the more a Christian talks about love, the more likely it is that what they’re ACTUALLY proposing is hateful, bigoted, and just downright cruel. And sometimes rather perverted.

Speaking of hateful, cruel and perverted, let’s check in on the Catholic Church.

Indianapolis, IN —
As the Indiana General Assembly prepares to consider a proposed
constitutional amendment which would ban gay marriage in the state,
Indiana’s six Roman Catholic bishops have weighed in on the issue.

Fun.

In a December 4 joint statement, the bishops said that they “respect the
equal dignity of all persons” but marriage is the “intimate communion
of life and love between one man and one woman.”

Look, you pompous dinglefucks. Those two statements flagrantly contradict each other. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t say “I think you’re equal” and then turn around and say “I want to deny you rights that other people get based solely on who you are.” If you say that, then you clearly don’t believe that they are equal. Equality means equal rights. Denial of the one is a denial of the other. It’s a set in stone biconditional (see what I did there?).

“With deep respect for all our brothers and sisters,

SHUT. THE. FUCK. UP.

we affirm the institution of marriage as the intimate communion of life
and love between one man and one woman. Marriage is an intimate sharing
of conjugal life and love.

It’s all about sex for these sanctimonious perverts.

Gay people don’t want marriage rights because they want to fuck. They’re doing just fine in the fucking department.* They don’t need permission from you or anyone else to stroke their genitals. And the same goes for straight people.

Gay marriage is about hospital visitation privileges. It’s about tax exemptions. It’s about adoption and child custody.

Get your god-addled brain out of the prude gutter.

It involves the total gift of self in a partnership for the whole of life. Only by means of the complementarity between a man and a woman can this total gift of self be fully given and received,” the bishops wrote.

Wow. You actually accomplished something. You managed to make the world’s most elaborate and unfunny dick joke.

Seriously. That statement is just a pretentious, self-important way to say, “Gays can’t marry ’cause penis in vagina huh huh huh.”

Well, Beavis, you’re wrong. In fact, absurdly wrong. In fact, if you restate what they said above without all the fancy sounding religio-jargon, it comes out to this:

Marriage requires loving commitment. Loving commitment requires a penis going into vagina.  Therefore gays can’t marry. QED

It would be laughable if it weren’t ruining real people’s lives.

And if total gift of self requires a penis going into a vagina, does that mean Jesus has a vagina? Or can men just not go to heaven?

(This is the first time I’ve ever said this about anyone: I really, really hope these Bishops don’t love children…)

“We respect the equal dignity of all persons while upholding the
uniqueness of the covenant of marriage as established by our Creator.

“We respect you while keeping all the good toys to ourselves. Ninny ninny boo boo.”

The well-being of children, of the family, and of society is closely
bound to the healthy state of marriage and respect for its true nature
and purpose.”

Yeah, ’cause when I think of the well-being of children, I think of the Catholic Church. And I think Jerry Sandusky. And I think I’m gonna go to the hospital, because I’ve clearly developed a brain tumor…

Without naming the upcoming debate, the bishops “urged the people of
Indiana” to “defend the dignity and …truth about marriage, according
to God’s plan and law, with charity toward all.”

Sorry, bub, but this is not a theocracy. You don’t get to take a god-shit all over our laws. Pass this stupid law if you want. It’ll just be overturned a few years from now.

“On the one hand, I hope that the statement serves to affirm the great
esteem we afford to the institution of marriage, a way of life that is
prior to the nation-state and any government,” Indianapolis Archbishop Joseph Tobin said. “On
the other hand, we hope to reinforce the dignity of every human being,
whom the Church accepts as a unique creation of our loving God.”

Blah blah blah blah. We love everyone, especially the people we hate!

Only a Christian would deprive people of rights, but call it “reinforcing the dignity of every human being.” That’s some serious Orwellian doublespeak there. And it’s no surprise that they repeat the crap about respect and love and dignity over and over and over ad nauseum. Deep down, they know their position is unsupportable bigotry. They know how awful their position appears to any rational person. They know they can’t just put lipstick on a pig. So they slather the poor porker with the most garish shades of lipstick all over its future bacon-y goodness, and hope that the sheer tackiness and ludicrousness of the whole thing will distract people enough that they don’t notice what it really is.

But America isn’t stupid. Slowly but surely, people are seeing through the ruse.

Fuck you, Catholic Church.**

_________________

* I wish my university had a Fucking Department.

** That means I respect your dignity.

Don’t let the facts get in your way

As soon as I saw the headline, I knew exactly how the religious right would react.

Utah polygamy ruling criticized

And I bet now that you’ve seen it, you do too. First, let’s look at just what this ruling is…

(CNN) – Some social conservatives are blasting Utah’s ruling striking down part of that state’s law banning polygamy.

The suit was brought by the stars of the television reality series “Sister Wives,” and a federal judge’s ruling Friday throws out the law’s section prohibiting “cohabitation,” saying it violates constitutional guarantees of due process and religious freedom.

Got that? “Cohabitation”. As in living together. The law told consenting adults whom they can and can’t live with. Obviously unconstitutional. It remains illegal in Utah to obtain more than one valid marriage certificate, but the law can’t tell you whom you can live with, regardless of marital status.

Cue the froth.

Former Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum – who a decade ago came under fire for comments indicating polygamy would become legal if courts banned anti-sodomy laws – responded to the ruling over the weekend.

“Sometimes I hate it when what I predict comes true,” the former U.S. senator tweeted Sunday.

Sometimes I hate it when Santorum opens his big fucking mouth. Actually, I hate that all of the time. The man is constitutionally incapable of uttering a single sentence that isn’t demonstrably false and/or idiotic and/or bigoted and/or ignorant and/or frothing.

The ruling didn’t legalize polygamy, idiot. It legalized cohabitation, which is something the government has no business meddling with in the first place. How would you like it if the government told you you couldn’t live with the one you loved?

The Family Research Council, led by prominent social conservative Tony
Perkins, also weighed the Utah statute, warning of “serious consequences
of redefining marriage.”

Tony Perkins is just not a human being. He’s a loosely organized collection of god-humper buzzwords with an automatic hair trigger. Did someone mention marriage in any capacity or context? REDEFINING MARRIAGE!

“Throughout history, marriage has been future-oriented, focused on the
next generation and the best interests of children. The reality is that
society needs children, and children need a mom and a dad,” Perkins said
Monday.

And these kids get a mom and a dad…and a mom and a mom and a mom. Just like in those good old Biblical days you claim to believe in so literally.

“However, redefining marriage to fulfill the desires of same-sex couples
or polygamists only moves society away from this vital public interest
and creates social chaos.”

Five hicks in Utah get to live in the same house. They’re still not legally married. The only thing that’s been redefined here is the meaning of “redefined” whenever Tony Perkins blubbers it out.

In striking down the section of the law Friday, Judge Clark Waddoups used a 2003 Supreme Court landmark gay rights case Lawrence v. Texas, which ruled that anti sodomy laws were unconstitutional.

During that Supreme Court ruling a decade ago, Santorum told the Associated Press that bans on sodomy would open the doors to a “right to polygamy” and other sexual acts.

“If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything,” Santorum said in 2003.

If there were no right to adultery, then half the Republican Party would be in fucking prison.

But Waddoups’ ruling keeps in place the ban on bigamy “in the literal
sense – the fraudulent or otherwise impermissible possession of two
purportedly valid marriage licenses for the purpose of entering into
more than one purportedly legal marriage.”

Fuck off, facts! We’ve got a narrative to shill!

Some religious groups also criticized the ruling.

What the fuck is the point of this sentence? Is anyone OTHER than religious nuts criticizing it?

“This is what happens when marriage becomes about the emotional and
sexual wants of adults, divorced from the needs of children for a mother
and a father committed to each other for life,” said Russell Moore, of
the Southern Baptist Convention.

See how he weaseled that word “divorce” into his lie? This is the verbal equivalent of putting the Republican base in a jar and shaking it to make them fight. It’s all about stimulation, not information. Anyone with half a monkey brain knows that having children was never a requirement for people getting married. Childless marriages have never been illegal in this country. And even if that were the issue, it’s fucking irrelevant because the current case hasn’t altered the marriage laws in any way.

“Polygamy was outlawed in this country because it was demonstrated,
again and again, to hurt women and children. Sadly, when marriage is
elastic enough to mean anything, in due time it comes to mean nothing.”

Sometimes it hurts women and children. If girls are forced into plural marriages against their will, that’s obviously harmful.

But that’s not an issue of polygamy. ONE forced marriage is bad. Multiple forced marriages are just more of the same bad.

Once again, the real issue here is the one thing that god-humpers refuse to acknowledge: CONSENT. The idea of a woman consenting of her own free will to pretty much anything is antithetical to the misogynistic beliefs that god-humpers desperately cling to. Women and girls can’t self determine. They can’t act and choose under their own power. They have to be sheltered and controlled. So protecting them from sexual predators becomes a matter of controlling other people’s private behavior, rather than punishing those who do things to them without their consent (which is the way it SHOULD be done).

Todays lesson: Every god-humper is a liar. And not everyone who claims to protect women and girls is a feminist.

The First Church of Commerce

I hate the word “libertarian”. Not because I have anything against libertarians. Many libertarians are smart people with a lot of good ideas (and other ideas that I strongly disagree with). I like the fact that libertarians defy the two-party system and strive to transcend the tired, oversimplified, black-and-white politics of liberal vs. conservative. It’s not libertarians as a whole that piss me off.

What pisses me off is that any jackass can call him or herself a libertarian. This means that just as “socialism” has become an utterly meaningless term because of how people (including too many libertarians) apply it to others, so has “libertarian” as a label one applies to oneself. You might as well call yourself “smegmatarian” for all the word “libertarian” tells me about you. (Let’s just hope “smegmatarian” doesn’t work like “vegetarian”. Ew.)

Many so-called libertarians are virtually indistinguishable from your standard run-of-the-mill god-humper religious rightists. They stand for all the same things as the religious right, but because they worship the free market and think millionaires should be allowed to wipe their asses with starving children (we all know they’d do that if they got the chance), they call themselves libertarian.

Such is the case with Bob Livingston of personalliberty.com. And he really, really wants you to know just what a libertarian he is.

#1 Libertarian site! Free! Liberty! Shop the liberty store! Put on your freedom panties! Did I mention I love free liberty libertarian freedom! Buy my book!

#1 Libertarian site! Free! Liberty! Shop the liberty store! Put on your freedom panties! Did I mention I love free liberty libertarian freedom? Buy my book! It’s Free! (In that, you’re free to give me 30 bucks for it.)

For someone who loves personal liberty so much, you’d think maybe this guy would support the idea of people being free to practice harmless personal relationship choices without facing discrimination.  But this brings us to a problem I do have with libertarians in general: They usually understand personal liberty entirely in economic/commercial terms, and always purely from the supply-side. Any other form of personal freedom or rights just doesn’t register with them.

This is very much the case with Mr. Livingston, who just can’t comprehend why anyone might support gay marriage.

Gay Marriage Trumps 1st Amendment

December 10, 2013 by

No, it doesn’t. But that ain’t gonna stop you from pulling the dumbest fucking arguments in the galaxy from your liberty-hole, is it?

When government creates special rights for one group, it inevitably does so at the expense of the natural rights of the majority.

You sure you included enough dog-whistle terms in there? Maybe you should’ve found a way to cram in “job creators”, “gay agenda” and “urban thug”, just to be sure you’ve sufficiently whipped your Pavlovian conservative readership into an irrational frenzy.

Such is the case with abortion, where the courts created out of whole cloth a “right” for the mother at the expense of the unborn child’s right to life.

Fetuses are the majority now? When the fuck did that happen? Perhaps more importantly, HOW the fuck did that happen? Someone out there must have a serious case of clown-car vagina to make that work.

Or do you just not know what the phrase “such is the case” means? Well, you see how in your previous sentence you brought up the rights of the majority? Yes, I know how hard it is for god-humpers to remember the words they blurted out just seconds before, but really try this time. You see, when you end one sentence with “rights of the majority”, and then begin the next with “such is the case”, then what follows SHOULD BE A FUCKING CASE OF IT, YOU FUCKING ILLITERATE FUCK.

But none of this matters, because this claim about abortion is just god damn stupid. A fetus in the first two trimesters doesn’t have higher brain functions (I’ll avoid the obvious joke). It’s not thinking or feeling or experiencing or doing any of the things a person does. It doesn’t have any thoughts, so it doesn’t have rights any more than a rock or a tree or a Juggalo does. The woman carrying the fetus, however, does have thoughts and feelings and experiences, so she has rights. Once the fetus has a functioning brain and can survive on its own, this relationship changes. But before that happens, she could play fucking tennis with the fetus for all I care.

And such is the case with gay marriage and a recent judge’s ruling in Colorado that will require the owner of a bakery to serve homosexual couples over his religious objections.

Good galluping god gravy, man. Just stop using the phrase “such is the case”. A majority of Americans support gay marriage. You’re in the minority, Bob.

Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips declined to bake a cake for Charlie Craig and David Mullins when he learned it was to celebrate their “gay” marriage. Colorado doesn’t recognize gay marriages, but the men had “married” in Massachusetts.

If you’re gonna use the smug conservative scare quotes, at least use them consistently. To punish you, I’m going to skip ahead to something you say just a few sentences later in your op-ed:

Note that there was no evidence in any of the cases that the businesses refused to serve the customers on the basis of their sexual preferences.

Remember that thing I said about conservatives being verbal goldfish, immediately forgetting what they said just a few seconds after they say it? Well, Livingston’s brain is hard at work flushing his own statements down his cerebral toilet with every word he types. One second, it’s “they refused to cater when they heard it was a gay marriage,” the next it’s, “Discrimination? What discrimination? I never said anything about discrimination.” *Flush!*

Masterpiece Cakeshop’s attorney Nicolle Martin said the judge’s order puts Phillips in the impossible position of going against his Christian faith.

“He can’t violate his conscience in order to collect a paycheck,” she said. “If Jack can’t make wedding cakes, he can’t continue to support his family. And in order to make wedding cakes, Jack must violate his belief system. That is a reprehensible choice. It is antithetical to everything America stands for.”

For example, he refuses to make cakes for divorced people getting remarried, because the Bible forbids that (in its many cake-related verses). What’s that? He doesn’t? He only applies this supposedly deeply-held belief to the gays?

What an asshole.

In a similar case, the New Mexico Supreme court ruled in August that a Christian couple could not refuse to photograph a lesbian commitment ceremony. Gay marriages are not legal in New Mexico.

Let’s do that goldfish thing again. A few sentences after the above, we get this…

A common refrain from supporters of gay marriage legalization is that laws allowing gays to marry won’t affect anyone outside the couple. Clearly, this not the case.

*Flush!* As your New Mexico quote clearly indicates, this has NOTHING to do with legalizing gay marriage. Discrimination laws are a completely different thing. Your ball-fuckingly stupid argument contains its own refutation. The stuff you’re describing will happen whether gay marriage is legal or illegal, as you yourself clearly said.

So your argument against gay marriage isn’t even an argument against gay marriage. But your argument against discrimination laws is just as stupid. Freedom of religion does not include the ability to discriminate against others. You can’t just say, “God hates Jews” and then refuse to let Jews in your restaurant. That’s not how it works. The first amendment does not allow you to break the law.

But none of that matters to the freedom-loving libertarian, because he just simply can’t comprehend any kind of freedom other than businesses and corporations being free to do whatever they want, whenever they want, to whomever they want. Discriminate against already oppressed minorities? Sure. Rape the environment? Yeah, why not. Destroy the economy by giving sub-prime mortgages to people who never had a chance of paying them off? That’s poor people’s fault for not understanding the complexities of finance. Why couldn’t they just go to Yale like me?

There’s more to freedom that just buying and selling. Hell, there’s more to LIFE than just buying and selling. And something that makes buying and selling marginally more inconvenient isn’t the end of the world. So ease off, libertarians. Shallow, paranoid, and tunnel-visioned is no way to go through life.

Vox Populi

If you’re like me and enjoy reading something excruciatingly dumb every now and then, then you can rarely go wrong with the Letters to the Editors pages of local newspapers. I usually find myself wondering, “If these are the ones they saw fit to publish, just how awful must the unfit ones have been?” And today’s three letters are no different.

Let’s start with C. Dale German of Bethany, OK, who has a nuanced and original take on the current condition of these great United States.

One nation under God

Ha ha! Just kidding. He’s just gonna regurgitate dishonest god-humper boilerplate. This asshole has totally drunk the “1950s were a utopia” Kool-Aid about the 1950s that too many Americans gullibly believe, and he wants us all to know how deluded he is.

America was once a civil place.

Even our Wars were Civil!

Democrats and Republicans fought from opposite political perspectives yet were both proud Americans.

In fact, just like now, they would NEVER shut up about what proud Americans they are. It’s practically the only thing politicians ever say in this country.

Families could watch TV with small children and never hear profanity.

Talk about first world problems. Oh, I’m sorry, I meant fucking god damn first world problems, you cunt-faced son of a bitch.

School days began with Bible reading, a salute to the flag and the Lord’s Prayer.

That flag reference sandwiched between two religious references is very revealing. As much as they yammer on about the evils of idolatry, the flag might as well be a god to fundamentalists.

We went to work and left our houses unlocked.

Then you were idiots, seeing as crime rates were about the same in the 1950s as they are today, and are actually steeply declining over the last two decades. The only thing that’s changed is now you have sensationalistic 24 hour news channels constantly bombarding you with real life horror stories.

The American military was strong and respected.

That’s because we’d just dropped a fucking nuke on Japan. The “respect” was bullshit. People just didn’t want to get fucking nuked.

Americans felt blessed to live in America.

We still do. I just had a conversation the other day about how happy I am not to live in fucking Mexico where the fucking cartels are leaving duffel bags full of severed heads in elementary schools. The difference is that I don’t feel the need to buttress those feelings with glurgy, sentimental garbage and lies like you do.

“Blue laws” supported businesses that closed on Sunday.

Free enterprise!

Those who don’t remember this America don’t know how heartbreaking it is for those who do remember the America we lost.

It wasn’t lost, because you can’t lose something that never existed.

For sure there was poverty, segregation and social ills to be cured in an evolving America.

*Snort!* Yeah, America in the 50s was great! We saluted the flag and didn’t say the word “shit” on TV! Sure, there was crime, injustice, racism, sexism, higher poverty rates, higher illiteracy rates and all. But we had blue laws! (By the way–blue laws still exist in many cities…)

But we remember a nice country.

That’s because you were a spoiled little brat who was shielded from the harsh realities of the country you lived in. Social ills and injustice are perpetuated by silence, and silence is exactly what a sanctimonious, censorious, prudish, sheltered society like 1950s America breeds. That’s why you were so content with your fucking censored TV and chintzy American flag crap while black people were being beaten in the streets just for protesting Jim Crow laws. “Yeah, there was segregation and poverty, but I remember a nice country.” Shut the hell up.

School teachers and clergy wore suits and were respected.

If you paid school teachers a decent wage maybe they could afford more suits. Or, you know, feed and clothe their children. But the suits seem to be what’s important to you, and if that’s what it takes to get you to pay teachers more, then I guess I can go with it.

Men respected women as ladies and women responded as ladies.

“As ladies”. There is so much packed into those two words that I could write an entire blog post unraveling it. (Don’t worry. I won’t.) Let’s just say that this is the 1950’s “suits=respect” way of saying “Bitches stayed in their place.”

We can hope that not all is lost.

I hope all of it is lost. I don’t want to live in a society where superficial crap like words on TV, saluting a flag and wearing a suit are more important than real life concerns like poverty and injustice. Take your shallow-minded, cotton-candy, shiny-surface-with-a-rotten-core vision of America and shove it.

When those who remember are gone and only those who don’t remember remain, we can hope today’s crass, vulgar, obscenity of incivility will one day fade into history in a born-again America true to its founding purpose — one nation under God.

Or we could just keep living our lives and wait for all you pathetic old fogies to die so we don’t have to hear about this crap any more. The really funny thing is that 60 years from now people will be saying these exact same things about the times we’re currently living in. Humans are nothing if not predictable animals.

Our next subject, Wayne Hull of Yukon, OK, has some serious fucking Fatwa Envy going on:

Regarding the staging of “The Most Fabulous Story Ever Told” at Civic Center Music Hall: Why would anyone during the holidays condemn an actual religion of peace? Imagine the ferocious protests if the same venue was being used to stage “The Most Fabulous Ramadan.” Why mock people of faith who celebrate their faith?

Because it’s funny? It’s telling that every time Christianity is mocked, the response is a furious protest by Christians claiming that Christians don’t do furious protests so fuck the Muzzies. They are so jealous of Muslims they can barely contain it.

What’s hilarious about ridiculing the story of Christ, likely using the most exaggerated homosexual caricatures in the presentation, and infusing sex acts into a holiday otherwise devoid of promiscuity?

Christmas? Devoid of promiscuity? Are you fucking high? The whole damn holiday revolves around a teenage girl giving birth out of wedlock.

Oh, and notice how he says “likely” when describing the contents of the play he’s furiously not-protesting. That means he hasn’t seen the play he’s criticizing. Fucking typical.

How is this anything but an affront to people whose beliefs are different and, consequently, threatening?

Pretty sure you’re the one protesting people whose beliefs you view as different and threatening. Hasn’t that been the whole theme of every single sentence prior to this one?

They made a play about gay Jesus. Fucking get over it. You didn’t even fucking see it, and no one is forcing you or anybody else to watch it. Yet you protest its very existence. You, my friend, are the one being intolerant.

Last year the Obama administration openly condemned an American citizen for a YouTube video poking fun at the Prophet Muhammad.

This would be a good time to remind everyone that the term “religion of peace” in regards to Islam was coined by George W. Bush. Pandering to Muslims is nothing new, and both parties do it. It’s not right, but it’s not exclusive to Obama, either.

Now our elected officials waffle with another public piece that, if paralleled in regards to Islam, would likely result in mass riots.

More fatwa envy. American Christians really, really, REALLY wish they could get away with the violence that goes on in the Muslim world. They’d love to riot and chop people’s heads off if they could.

Christians are supposed to shut up passively as their faith is ridiculed. If they speak up, they’re chastised as being bigots or, at least, anti-First Amendment.

And rightly so, because that’s exactly what they are. But no one is calling for you to be censored. What you’re asking for, on the other hand…

Those who support a “gay agenda” must know how deeply regressive this play impacts their desire to be recognized as part of a larger society.

Only amongst small minded bigots like you. Normal people don’t respond to a gay Jesus play by thinking, “Well, I guess that means I should deny gays their rights!” That’s not how human brains work.

The Christmas story isn’t a story of gay sex, let alone gay persons.

See? The gay people don’t need your fucking approbation anyhow. You’ve already excluded them, so why should they censor their play to appease your bigoted ass?

It’s a Middle Eastern story of one man whose life changed the world forever.

Which is why we Christians fight tooth and nail to make sure it never changes again….

…And lose every time.

And just so it doesn’t look like I’m unfairly picking on my home state, let’s move on to Pennsylvania. Central Pennsylvania, to be more precise. And as we all know, central Pennsylvania is the most important Pennsylvania, because it’s central to all that other Pennsylvania. And it’s got those fires that never, ever, ever go out.*

But that’s not what the real problem is. Take it away, Chris Hicks of East Pennsboro Township.

If the question is gay marriage, God has the answer

Please tell me Jesus finally proposed to Muhammad.

In response to Shirley Ericson’s letter, “United Methodist church is acting against a courageous minister“:

Contrary to Ms. Ericson’s opinion, God is not this grandfatherly-cosmic-casual-genie that looks down on us and is OK with our sinful condition.

Grandfatherly Cosmic Casual Genie sounds a lot better when you sing it to the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles cartoon theme. Seriously, try it.

And why would god even be a genie, casual or otherwise? I read Shirley Ericson’s letter. She at no point implies that Jeebus is played by Shaq or Robin Williams, or that he ever grants any wishes (see what I did there? Prayer is bullshit!). The only person talking about this weird genie Jesus is you, bub.

Anyways, if gob doesn’t like our sinful condition, he shouldn’t have created it in the first place. He chose to give us free will and put tempting fruit in the garden. If he’s unhappy with the result, he has no one to blame but himself. Would you put a steak on your floor then beat your dog for eating it?

His word is clear and infallible. It does not change, while a culture’s moral compass becomes clouded and is in decline.

How exactly can a compass be in decline? Maybe he’s referring to the Golden Compass film franchise…

His word is rock solid, firm and clear.

Weirdly, this is also true of his dick.

Sin is bad because it hurts the heart of God.

What is it about fundamentalist religion that turns its followers into prattling five year olds? The baby-talk that comes from these people is just plain fucking creepy. The above sentence should never be spoken by any human being over the age of 8, unless they have, like, Down’s syndrome or something. And even then they should keep it to a minimum.

But apparently, in this guy’s puerile mind, an omnipotent being can be hurt. How? How could a perfect being be harmed in any way? If he has ANY vulnerabilities or shortcomings whatsoever, then he is not perfect and omnipotent.  It makes no sense to speak of a perfect being feeling or wanting or needing anything at all. And, with one fell swoop, I’ve just erased the motivation for all but the most deistic forms of religion. Sorry about that. I know how you guys hate logic.

When will we quit trying to pursue our own fleshly lusts and sinful desires and seek to live sacrificial lives unto our great, gracious, holy heavenly Father?

When we all lose our god damn minds. So, hopefully never.

For a closing exercise, click on that link above and read Shirley Ericson’s letter, then go back and read Chris Hicks’ again.  These are both Christians, but they are clearly very different kinds of Christians. And I’m not just talking about their views on gay marriage being different. Their brains work differently.  They’re processing information and reacting to it in starkly different ways.

Even before we get to their beliefs and their claims, just the language of the two letters shows striking contrasts. Both letters, for instance, contain a single interrogative sentence. But they use the interrogative for entirely different purposes. Ericson’s interrogative (third paragraph) is a hypothetical in which she presents some evidence and then provides a logical conclusion from it in order to make the reader THINK about their position. She’s challenging her audience to use their minds and reconsider their position.

Now look at Hicks’ interrogative, which I just snarked at above. It’s a lament, intended to get people to stop behaving differently from him and start unquestioningly obeying an authority. It has precisely the OPPOSITE purpose as Ericson’s. And rather than use logic to persuade, he tries to change the reader’s mind by appealing to a cognitive bias humans have to be more trusting of people who look wealthy, clean, beautiful, or powerful. Seriously, would even North Korea use language like his to describe its leader?

The baby-talk is completely absent from Ericson’s letter. Her declarative sentences are more complex than Hicks’, and again she uses them differently. Her declarative sentences consist mostly of statements of fact that are not a matter of belief, such as “This guy will lose his job,” etc. She often uses these facts as premises and conclusions in arguments. For Hicks, EVERY declarative sentence states as fact something that is a matter of his own personal faith. He doesn’t actually state a single faith-free fact anywhere in his letter. Not one. And he doesn’t make any arguments at all. He just declares his own beliefs as absolutely true by fiat, as if he himself were god.

I could go on and on analyzing the differences between the two, but the point should be obvious by now. There are different kinds of Christians, and differences between them run so deep that they alter the very way they process information and interact with the world. Ericson focuses on concrete facts. She then processes these to see what they imply. And if what they imply contradicts what she believes about gay marriage, she adapts her beliefs to the new information. She then proceeds to spell out these premises and conclusions for others, hoping to replicate the process in other minds as well. This is all just a long way of saying she’s a RATIONAL FUCKING PERSON.

Hicks, on the other hand, is a textbooks example of an authoritarian. He associates power with truth and beauty. If someone is powerful, then whatever they say must be true and good. He sees himself as a conduit of this power, and issues demands on its behalf that others assimilate to his thought processes or face dire wrath. So he’s like the Borg, but without any real power. He views communication between humans as a string of commands that others obey the power that he is vicariously channeling from an imaginary being.  And he sees value in others only insofar as they conform to this arbitrary string of commands. Which, again, is just a long way of saying he’s a FUNDAMENTALIST FUCKFACE.

I’m glad there’s no heaven. Spending eternity with these guys would be hell.

 

____________________

*No wonder they based a horror video game on it. That shit is fucking scary.

God hates facts

While most of the rest of the country gradually moves towards equality on the gay marriage issue, Indiana is resolutely planting its feet in the past. There’s a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage headed for a vote some time in November 2014. Why, you ask? How could Indiana be this backwards when their neighbor Illinois just decided to join the 21st century and legalize gay marriage? The answer is simple. It’s because of assholes like this guy:

Gay marriage would violate God’s laws

You say that like it fucking matters. Yet God doesn’t seem to give a fuck about people violating his oh-so-sacred laws. Adultery is supposedly against his laws, yet it’s legal in all 50 states, and he hasn’t done jack shit about it. Did it ever occur to you that maybe he just doesn’t care about you or any other glorified primate on this planet?

In Sunday’s Indy Star, business columnist John Ketzenberger’s statement that Indiana’s passing of HJR 6 would make the state less economically competitive and that Indiana would become a “beacon for limiting rights” is as far from the truth as most of the other arguments that favor voting down the proposed amendment.

Apparently god hates punctuation. God’s law says you get just one comma in your paragraph. After that, you just have to string words together without any kind of structure or coherence until you reach that weary period at the end. If “comma” meant sex partner, “words” meant “every aspect of your life”, and “period” meant “miserable death”, then that’s also a pretty apt description of god’s views on sex and marriage.

The author of this dribble, Jim Riecker, makes no actual arguments against the claim that banning gay marriage would harm the economy. He just simply asserts it as fact. It’s what liberals believe–so it must be false! Logic!

But there is very good reason to think it’s true. Businesses of all sorts want to cater to the under-40 crowd. They spend lots of money, which is why most things are marketed towards them. And they overwhelmingly support gay rights, including the rights of gays to marry. They’re not gonna want to come to your state if your state presents itself as a backwards redneck shithole, which is exactly what Indiana is doing right now.

The fact is that the push to move this state to the secular left has nothing to do with economics or individual rights, but is another example of misdirection by a group and their supporters to engage in spiritual warfare through public opinion and deception against the laws of God that this nation was founded upon.

I bet you thought I was kidding about that whole “One comma then no more punctuation” rule, didn’t you? The lord works in mysterious ways, I guess. Either that or Indiana is currently experiencing a massive shortage in punctuation marks. If only punctuation were made from limestone! We could make a fuck ton of commas, periods, dashes, and parentheses here in Bloomington (one of the few sane places in Indiana).

This asshole could clearly use some. Here, dingleberry, let me try to make that sentence a little clearer for you:

The fact is, that the push to move this state to the secular left has nothing to do with economics or individual rights. but It is another example of misdirection by a group (and their supporters) to engage in spiritual warfare (through public opinion and deception) against the laws of God that this nation was founded upon.

There. It’s still a clunky, ugly paragraph. But at least it’s readable now.

And now that it’s readable, I see that I’m wasting my fucking time. “They want gay marriage because they hate baby Jeebus.” Real fuckin’ original. Yeah, the other side couldn’t possibly be concerned with helping gay people. They just hate your pathetic deity. A deity, I might add, who seems utterly impotent to actually address this issue himself. It wouldn’t be that difficult for Jeebus to just come down and say, “Hey, bros! Gay marriage? Cut that shit out.” But apparently he can’t get off the fucking god-couch. Lazy-ass motherfucker…

It seems like God’s law is always being conveyed by his sad little followers. It’s been, according to your ignorant followers, 6,000 years now, God. When are you gonna get your head outta your Holy Hole and actually do something?

The only opportunity that Indiana has in this argument is whether to remain a beacon for the laws of God.

True story. The other day I was in a bar here in Bloomington. This dumb hick sitting a couple seats down from me starts spouting out a bunch of racist jokes. And I mean, really bottom of the barrel dumbshit racist jokes, like “Why shouldn’t you play Uno with a Mexican? ‘Cause they get all the green cards! Hurr hurr hurr!” Keep in mind, in this bar, there was me, this racist asshole, and two black guys, and that’s it. He thought this was appropriate.

Eventually he turned to me and blurted out, “And you know what else?” I was sick of his shit, so I responded, “This better not be another fucking bad joke.” He looked nonplussed for a second, then proceeded to explain to me that Americans can apply for refugee status in Canada from the War on Drugs. I said that’s bullshit. Which, by the way, it is.

The motherfucker was so offended by this–a mild insult, by my standards–that he immediately demanded his tab and left the bar without speaking another word. He just simply couldn’t handle the idea that someone might point out that simple facts contradict basically every stupid, childish, racist, xenophobic thought in his barely functioning brain.

Indiana has too many of these fucking people. Mr. Riecker here just wants to shout “God’s law! God’s law! God’s law!” and simply can’t abide by someone saying something like, “A gay person whose loved one is dying isn’t allowed to visit them in the hospital because they aren’t allowed to get married. This is injustice.” If you say that, they demand their tab and storm off like spoiled children.

Maybe Illinois will spank them and set them straight.