Happy Thanks-Gay-ving

Poor Peter LaBarbera. Someone gayed all over his Thanksgiving god-wank fest, so he had no choice but to throw himself a  pity party.

Thanking GOD on Thanksgiving Day

‘Gay’ activists use Thanksgiving to be “thankful for” homosexual advances

Homosexual advances? Did someone try to baste his drumstick?

No. The advances in question are advances in gay rights, particularly the wave of states legalizing gay marriage over the last two years. But the subtitle gets more attention if you phrase it to sound like someone offered unwelcome gravy. And because, and this can’t be emphasized enough, gay sex is all people like LaBarbera ever think about.

As we enjoy Thanksgiving Day tomorrow with our families, we should remember that the original purpose of Thanksgiving was to thank God for our blessings as Americans.

Like most such holidays, it also conveniently allows us to paper over that whole genocide thing.

This is clearly demonstrated by two of the “founding documents” of Thanksgiving (reprinted below) – George Washington’s and Abraham Lincoln’s Thanksgiving Day Proclamations. Both pay homage to God (so much for ACLU’s vision of separating God from State).

Because that’s all it takes to win a legal argument, right?

As secularism and – dare I say – godlessness deepen in these United States, many are leaving God out of Thanksgiving Day. Language always follows the heart: have you noticed the habit that has crept in of people being thankful for this and that – without being thankful to God?

If God weren’t such an insecure, needy fucking prick this wouldn’t be an issue. What the fuck should I be thanking him for, anyway? “Hey, God! Thanks for wiping out the Indians with smallpox so that white people could overrun yet another corner of the globe and build yet another empire on the backs of slaves!”

Now homosexuality advocates (and others) have taken this regrettable phenomenon a step further: using Thanksgiving as an opportunity to be “thankful for” developments that are decidedly ungodly – e.g., the advance of out-and-proud homosexualism, including “same-sex marriage,” in the United States.

Waaah! They got gay all over my Thanksgiving! I can’t enjoy a holiday if it’s also celebrated by people who are different from me!

I came upon this homosexual website article timed for Thanksgiving about homosexuals being thankful for various “gay rights” achievements, including more lesbians on TV!

How could a website be homosexual?

We know as Christians and Bible-respecting Jews that Our Heavenly Father is not smiling on that:

You’re right. He’s probably frantically masturbating to the new All Lesbian Channel. I know this because your god seems to be a lot like you.

here is some eternal, unchanging biblical truth on the sin of lesbianism and homosexuality:

He then proceeds to quote the same old tired Bible verses that god-humpers pull from their asses whenever they want to justify their bigotry.

That’s really what’s so frustrating about these fundamentalist types. Their tune never fucking changes. They just keep parroting the same ignorant garbage and telling the same lies and whining about the same imaginary persecution over and over  and over. They’ve mistaken recalcitrance and thickheadedness for eternal truth, stubbornness for ultimate meeting. They’re like donkeys that refuse to move, but also believe that Not Moving is the ultimate meaning of all life in the universe. They’re holy asses. Holy asses obsessed with assfucking.

Why are you getting all divisive and preachy on us the day before Thanksgiving?! you ask.

No, I’m not asking that. I’m well aware that you’re incapable of doing anything else.

The rest of his post is just as predictable. He’s in sole possession of the ultimate truth. America needs to suck Jesus’ dick or god will take a holy righteous dump on the future. He’s a poor persecuted victim because liberals call him names like “bigot” when all he wants is to take away people’s rights. Yawn.

You know what I’m thankful for, Mr. LaBarbera? I’m thankful that people like you are slowly but surely losing. I’m thankful that, at the end of the day, all you have left is your indignation, resentment, and spite. And I’m thankful that I get to watch you slowly consume yourself through your own hatred until you’re nothing but a purple-face, spittle-flecked, angry old man spewing desperate, futile wails of frustration at a world that gives less and less of a shit about you every day. You’re becoming more and more irrelevant, and part of you damn well knows it.

Happy Thanksgiving, bitch.

Advertisements

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.

Cloning the Language

There’s a widely cited term in the skeptical community about a commonly observed phenomenon in the gullible dingleberry community. Crank Magnetism, as it’s called, is the tendency of those who accept one ludicrous pseudoscientific or otherwise demonstrably false belief to accept others as well. So a creationist like Phillip Johnson also turns out to be an HIV/AIDS denialist.  Or a global warming denialist might also be a stem cell denialist. Essentially fucktardation in one realm of thought correlates positively with other realms of thought also being fucktarded. Stupidity spreads through one’s brain like the virus you deny exists, and makes your thoughts on a whole range of topics utterly fucktarded.

This is certainly true of the Discovery Institute, the primary driver behind the ball-crunchingly fucktarded pseudo-theory of Intelligent Design. They also are fucktarded in several other scientific domains, including the one I’m looking at today: Human Cloning. It also provides a perfect example of another odious practice that the superstitious and bigoted like to do: Appropriating Language. Observe:

Some worry most about the eventual birth of a cloned baby—an event that is still a long way off. But therapeutic cloning already poses an acute threat to human dignity.

It’s starting to reach the point where I cringe whenever I hear the word “dignity”, because it is more and more being used to attack things that have nothing to do with dignity. The damn Catholic Church claims that IVF techniques are an affront to human dignity, for fuck’s sake. Generally, “dignity” is more and more starting to mean “some airy idea or arbitrary rule that we will treat as more important than actual physical human beings.”

As Charles Krauthammer, who served on George W. Bush’s President’s Council on Bioethics, warned in the New Republic in 2002, creating cloned embryos for research—now accomplished—is “dangerous” because it reduces the cloned embryo to “mere thingness,” justifying “the most ruthless exploitation.”

Quoting Krauthammer, eh? That’s fucking hilarious, seeing as he once called you guys’ pet theory “tarted-up creationism” and thinks you Intelligent Design nuts are scientific phonies. But let’s see what this Iraq War supporter has to say about “dignity”.

He went on to say:

It is the ultimate in desensitization . . . The problem, one could almost say, is not what cloning does to the embryo, but what it does to us . . . Creating a human embryo just so it can be used and then destroyed undermines the very foundation of the moral prudence that informs the entire enterprise of genetic research: the idea that, while a human embryo may not be a person, it is not nothing. Because if it is nothing, then everything is permitted. And if everything is permitted, then there are no fences, no safeguards, no bottom.

Hey, Charles. Hyperbole just called. He said he wants you to tone it down, since even he’s embarrassed by this. Also, notice how he’s picked up the terms “exploitation” and “desensitization” from other issues and stuck them onto an issue to which they simply don’t apply. Remember, this is a single cell that we are talking about. One human zygote–that’s what therapeutic cloning produces. That’s it. It has no feeling, no thoughts, no experiences, no nerves, no brain. There is nothing there to be harmed in any way. A single cell has no dignity. It can’t be exploited. It has no senses. It is not a person. But in the name of “exploitation” and “desensitization” and “human dignity” we need to outlaw experimenting on it at the cost of valuable medical knowledge which could save thousands of real human beings.

Here’s a thought experiment. Imagine a trolley track with a fork in it. You’re at the switch. You can decide which track to send an out of control trolley down by pulling the switch.  On one track, there is a man tied to it. On the other track, a rack of petri dishes containing one thousand human zygotes. If you don’t pull the switch, the trolley will hit the man and kill him. If you pull the switch, it will hit the petri dishes and destroy all 1,000 embryos. What do you do?

If you answer “Pull the switch”, then you don’t believe zygotes are really people, since you’d be willing to destroy 1,000 of them to save one life.

If you say, “Don’t pull the switch and let the man die,” then you’re a fucking asshole.

The only effective preventative is to enact a comprehensive legal ban on human SCNT, not just the uses to which a cloned embryo may be put. Contrary to what the science intelligentsia, the biotechnology industry, and the mainstream media might claim, banning human SCNT is a step that is widely supported internationally. Indeed, in 2005, the General Assembly of the United Nationsvoted overwhelmingly in support of a non-binding resolution calling upon member states “to prohibit all forms of human cloning.”

Is there anything that the UN HASN’T issued a non-binding resolution on? I mean, Jesus, just about anybody can suck the right diplomatic cock and get a non-binding resolution through in the UN. And you gotta love how the right wing fuckberries rail against the evils of the UN and kowtowing to the international community…right up until they agree with them on something.

The devil will be found in how the term “cloning” is defined. In particular, we should be on the lookout for phony bans that actually legalize the SCNT process using human DNA. For example, many proposals would only outlaw “reproductive cloning.” But as we have seen, such a “ban” would not outlaw cloning at all, merelyone potential use that could be made of embryo made through cloning.

Yeah, kinda sucks when people use that tactic of  making a law vaguely worded so that it doesn’t actually do what you claim it does. Now, about those “academic freedom” laws that the Discovery Institute keeps pushing in state after state….

Outlawing human cloning would provide salutatory benefits

No, it wouldn’t. All it would do is deprive us of life-saving research in order to protect single cells. There is no plus side to this.

First, it would deprive cloning researchers of the funds to further perfect human cloning techniques.

Hear that? That’s every sane person on earth asking, “How the fuck is that a salutatory benefit?”

Outlawing human cloning would also be a clarion call to our scientists demanding that they stay within proper moral parameters as they serve society through the pursuit of knowledge.

I send this message out to all god-humpers, all sanctimonious twats, all conservative evangelicals and every moral crusader in the country:

YOU DO NOT GET TO DEFINE THE “PROPER MORAL PARAMETERS” FOR THE REST OF US. FUCK OFF.

And it would protect women.

You have got to be shitting me.

Recall that human eggs are the essential ingredients in the cloning recipe. As I wrote here last month, the need for human eggs in cloning threatens a great “human egg rush.”

But retrieving human eggs can be very dangerous to women’s health and fecundity. Banning cloning can thus prevent the further objectification of the female biological function.

There’s more appropriation for you. “Objectification”. Except for the fact that this issue has nothing to do with objectification or feminist critiques thereof.

This shit really pisses me of.  This asshole is leaving out the part where women volunteer their eggs in order to further scientific knowledge. It’s not like scientists are running through the streets probing every woman they find in order to get at her precious, precious ova. Women–grown up, adult women–donate the eggs of their own free will.

And yet, this guy is trying to sound like a feminist while leaving out a woman’s ability to make her own choices about her own body. I’m gonna call this bullshit Patriarchal Pseudo-Feminism. Basically, it means infantilizing women, treating them like they are unable to determine their own lives and choices, just like patriarchy always does to women, but disguising it in the language of feminism. I see it a lot. I’ve seen it used to attack pornography, abortion, IVF, contraception and a host of other issues relating to women. It frustrates me even more than overt sexism or misogyny, since at least if someone is being blatantly sexist they aren’t trying to lie to me about what a piece of shit they are.

But this fucknugget is treating women like they’re helpless children who need the law to protect them from evil scientists, and trying to make it look like he’s pro-woman for this. Fuck that. I’m not standing for it. Women can make their own fucking choices about their own fucking eggs. And (assuming they’re properly informed) if they want to give them to a scientist for a cloning experiment, the rest of us should respect their decision and not make condescending, patriarchal comments about how we need to protect them from themselves. Fuck you, Discovery Institute.

And any time you hear someone demanding that we need to ban something in the name of feminism, but they conveniently leave out the notions of informed consent and a woman determining her own life, tell hem to fuck off with their patriarchal wolf in feminist clothing.

Finally, on a positive note, once human cloning becomes beyond the pale, we could begin to row in the direction of areas of biotechnology that are morally licit, freeing human and financial resources for the pursuit of the abundant avenues of moral andefficacious biotechnological research—such as adult stem cell research, genetically tailored chemotherapy, and other medical treatments.

Except for the fact that there are things you can do with cloning that can’t be done with those other types of research. You’d be preventing us from making certain discoveries, not encouraging discoveries in other areas.

We can achieve remarkable biotechnology breakthroughs in this century without surrendering our ethics.

“Our” ethics? I certainly don’t share ethics with you, shitwad.

Outlawing human cloning is the essential progressive act.

And we end with one more act of cloning the left’s language in order to attack it. “Progressive” my boney white ass.

The Dumbest Comment in the Universe

The Atlantic Wire recently posted an article on recent poll data regarding the issues of gay marriage, affirmative action, and the NSA. It says about what one would think. Most Americans favor gay marriage, oppose affirmative action, and really hate the NSA. This is consistent with what several other polls have shown. It comes as no surprise.

But, oh, the comments on that article. A piece that involves both homosexuality and race is bound to bring out the pudding-brained godfuckers and hate-sucking bigots, and this one is no exception. There are a ton of dumb-as-a-box-of-finely-sifted-shit comments on it. But one in particular really stood out to me, so I thought I’d single it out for some mockery.  Ladies and gentlemen, may I introduce you to the man who calls himself vanhellsinger:

vanhellslinger 2 hours ago

The numbers change from day to day. For Example.

Now, normally when a human being types something like this, statistics usually follow. But that’s only true in this case if you speak some strange language in which “statistics” means “utter fucking imbecilic lunacy.”

Since the beginning of gay rights which started when Obama was elected…

Wait wait wait. Let me pull a Kanye here. I’ma let you finish, but first I gotta point something out. If you think Obama invented gay rights, you seriously haven’t been paying attention. I mean, where have you fucking been for, oh, the last thirty fucking years or so? You do realize that when the Netherlands became the first country to legalize gay marriage in 2001, Obama was a state senator in Illinois, and no one outside of that state even knew who the fuck he was, right? This is another way of asking just how goatfuckingly stupid do you have to be to think gay rights started with Obama?

Anyways, please continue.

Since the beginning of gay rights which started when Obama was elected the number of violent attacks against homosexuals has risen exponentially.

I mentioned this last time, but it bears repeating. The right wing bigots love pointing to the problems that they themselves create by discriminating as justification for discrimination. It’s like a dog that shits on your carpet then demands a laxative. “See this shit? This shit proves that you need to help me shit more.” Fuck you, dog. How about I rub your nose in your shit, whap you with a rolled up copy of the Constitution, and throw your ass outside where there’s no carpet for you to shit on?

Millions of people are outraged that a proven degenerate behavior is being promoted as a civil right.

Vanhellsinger of course provides no evidence for this. But like all bigots, he speaks for the people! And the people, apparently, are fucking nitwits.

Why not make having cancer a civil right?

Are you suggesting we shouldn’t let people with cancer get married?

Giving minorities a job, promotion, passing grade, and much more just because they are black is so wrong with obviously most people.

Who the fuck gives people a passing grade just because they’re black? I’ve taught at universities for years and never seen anyone do that.

Look what AA got us a President with what appears as an educated intelligent man, but is he?

I can tell someone here is not an educated, intelligent man.

The NSA leak is just another way for the liberals to distract us from the real issues-

Yeah, they’re distracting us by making Obama look  like an asshole. What a brilliant strategy!

The failure of ObamaCare

I don’t like it, therefore it’s a failure!

So if I don’t like the Miami Heat, does that mean I can just give last year’s NBA championship to the OKC Thunder? Because I’d love to do that.

the Fraud of Gay Rights

Let’s be clear here. This guy is actually saying that the NSA scandal was a conspiracy to distract us from the fact that gay rights isn’t real. It takes a special kind of mind to come up with something like that. It’s one of those special minds that rides the special bus and wears a special helmet.

a President that is a coward and unable to defend the American people- Bhengazi

Yeah, the president is soft on terror. I mean, all he does is send flying death robots around the world to kill al Qaeda members whenever they poke their heads above ground. What a pussy.

and not doing anything about Nuclear development in Iran and NK.

“Not doing anything” must mean “levying heavy sanctions on both countries and building up our military presence in the region in response” to this guy.

I suspect the democrats orchestrated this NSA scandal.

You thought I was kidding earlier when I said this guy actually fucking thinks that the NSA is a conspiracy to distract us from our God-given duty to hate fags? Nope. He really is that deranged.

I often wonder what the world must look like to one of these people who think everything is a conspiracy based around whatever they happen to hate.

“My coffee maker broke! Fucking homos!”

“A bird shit on my car! God damn you, Obama!”

“ObamaCare spoiled the end of Game of Thrones for me! Nooooooo!”

Dems have destroyed America ever since the civil war, FDR, Truman, JFK all were bad leaders and caused mass death in unnecessary wars.

…Unnecessary wars? You mean like World War II, the war that FDR and Truman fought? You think we need to bomb Iran and North Korea, but we shouldn’t have retaliated for Pearl Harbor, or stopped the Nazis from overrunning Europe?

And that’s the sentiment on which this dingleberry ends his dribble. Obama created fags, and we should have let the Nazis win. Thank you, Internet, for making me aware of this guy’s existence. Now excuse me while I go take a shower and silently weep for humanity’s future.

Buh Bye, Bachmann

Sarah Palin’s Mini-Me Michele Bachmann, the odious stupidity-sponge from Minnesota, has decided not to run for reelection next year. There aren’t enough “good riddances” in the universe to express my elation at this news. I honestly don’t give a shit why she’s doing this, I’m just glad this intellectual black hole won’t be in fucking Congress any more. But Bachmann wants us all to know she’s no coward.

In her video announcement, Bachmann said her decision was not influenced by any concerns about winning reelection.

“I’ve always, in the past, defeated candidates who were capable, qualified, and well-funded. And I have every confidence that if I ran, I would again defeat the individual who I defeated last year, who recently announced that he is once again running,” Bachmann said.

Sadly, I actually think this part is true. This might be the only fucking thing in existence that I agree with her on: She could probably get reelected if she wanted to. Whatever district of Minnesota she represents must be full of routine drool-rag users, or else she never could have made it to Washington to begin with.

But then there’s this…

Nor was her decision based on any concerns over an ongoing congressional ethics inquiry into the improper transfer of campaign funds, Bachmann said in her video. She is also facing a Federal Election Commission complaint about her former presidential campaign.

“This decision was not impacted in any way by the recent inquiries into the activities of my former presidential campaign or my former presidential staff,” she said. “It was clearly understood that compliance with all rules and regulations was an absolute necessity for my presidential campaign. And I have no reason to believe that that was not the case.”

Suuuure… I’ll fucking believe that when I believe anything else that Bachmann believes.

“I promise you I have and I will continue to fight to protect innocent human life, traditional marriage, family values, religious liberty, and academic excellence,” Bachmann said.

*Snort*

If she’s protecting academic excellence, then I’m a god damned Mormon missionary.

More Oklahomans make fools of themselves

I already looked at one idiotic argument against gay marriage from my home state of Oklahoma. That particular bit of stupidity was from just some random schmuck in Edmond. Today’s bit of drooling inanity, however, comes from people with actual power. Three state legislators, to be precise.

Young Oklahoma Republican lawmakers: Sanctity of marriage must endure

BY STATE REPS. ELISE HALL, JUSTIN WOOD AND JOSH COCKROFT

Note to bigots: If you want people to represent your position on gay marriage, you should not get guys called “Wood” and “Cockroft” to do it. You’re basically just inviting assholes like me to make fun of you.

As the three youngest members of the Oklahoma House of Representatives Republican caucus, we continue to believe that the push for a new definition of marriage is an attempt to carve out a special right that has no basis in the traditions of our country.

Since when do rights need to have a basis in tradition? Did women’s right to vote have any basis in tradition? Did equal rights for blacks have any basis in tradition?

We believe that all Americans deserve to be treated with dignity…

Okay. I’m not playing bullshit bigot boilerplate any more. Just move on to the obvious contradiction of this statement that you will inevitably make…

but that equal treatment has no bearing on the question of how marriage is defined.

So we can just throw out Loving v. Virginia and start banning interracial marriage again. Because the definition of marriage has nothing to do with equality. Nothing at all.

You see this thing I’m doing here? It’s a rare (on the right wing) form of thinking called “following a sentence through to its logical implications.” You might want to try it some time. Because I don’t think equality having nothing to do with marriage is anything you would ever actually want to stand by.

Marriage is defined as the union of a man and a woman. It’s not defined as a union between a man and another man nor a woman and another woman.

Don’t you just love how right wingers suddenly turn into strident lexicographers whenever the prospect of people they don’t even know having a relationship they don’t approve of comes up? We can’t redefine marriage! Think of the damage it will do to our dictionaries!

Doing so would represent creating a new right, not adhering to any previously understood right.

Bullshit. Giving women the right to vote didn’t “create a new right”. It took an existing right and extended it to a new group of people. That’s how this whole “equal rights” thing works.

Is gay marriage gaining traction with young people? Yes. But that is because of the moralistic relativity that is constantly being promoted by Hollywood and in many areas of pop culture today. The idea that is too frequently becoming the norm is that everything is allowed and nothing is off limits.

It’s pop culture’s fault! If we censored movies and made it harder to have this conversation, then we could be bigots all we want without ever having to worry about public exposure!

Whenever there’s some kind of moral panic, people often target some aspect of pop culture as the supposed cause of all our problems.  In the 20s it was jazz music and dancing. In the 30s it was movies.  In the 50s it was comic books. In the 60s it was rock music. In the 70s, heavy metal. Pornography, video games, horror films, gangster rap music, reality TV–all have found themselves in the cross hairs of sanctimonious culture warriors who want an easy target to solve all their problems. The reason is simple: pop culture is an easy target. It’s highly visible, and there’s always someone out there who finds some aspect of it offensive (usually because it depicts something unfamiliar to them). And, as any rational person might suspect, there is little evidence that pop culture actually has the power over people’s minds that the culture warriors say it does. Pop culture reflects us much more than we reflect it.

But culture warriors rarely care about facts. They care about airy principles and vaguely defined “values”. The myth of American “moral relativism” is a perfect example of this. Whenever right wing douche-nozzles like these guys talk of “moral relativism”, replace the term with “moral system different from my own” and you get their real point. I doubt there are very many Americans who believe “everything is allowed and nothing is off limits.” If there were, the murder and rape rates would be MUCH higher than they actually are because of all the people who just kill and take whatever they want. But the vast majority of Americans do in fact realize that these things are wrong, and don’t do them. They’re not moral relativists–they just have a moral system that differs from the Evangelical system, which is good, since the Evangelical system is based on bigotry, ignorance, superstition, venality, hatred, and pervasive stupidity.

God intended one man and one woman to be tied in holy matrimony for their entire lives.

No. God intended for Evangelicals to shut the fuck up and leave gay people alone.

I have just as much evidence to support my hypothesis as you do yours.

Proponents of gay marriage will point fingers at straight couples getting divorces, but that’s not the fault of traditional marriage — that’s an issue for each individual couple to deal with and answer to God. Humans are flawed individuals and fall short of the grace and glory of God. That, unfortunately, includes marriages that end. It is a straw-man argument.

It’s still better than “God says so.” Unless you’ve got a good solution to the Euthyphro Dilemma, your divine command ethics is up shit creek without a god-paddle.

And, no, it’s not a straw man. Bigoted douchenuggets repeatedly argue that gay marriage shouldn’t be allowed because children need both a mother and a father. Pointed out that divorce results in children being raised without one or the other–but we still don’t outlaw straight marriage–is entirely relevant.

Gay marriage proponents argue that long-term gay couples deserve the right to marry so they can maneuver certain legal matters dealing with things ranging from wills to being put on life insurance policies. There are alternate ways to address legal issues. A widespread acceptance of nontraditional marriage is not the way to go.

Not there aren’t other ways. Oklahoma has a frickin’ constitutional amendment which specifies that there not be any. Not only is gay marriage outlawed, but so are domestic partnerships and civil unions. There is no legal recourse, and assholes like your are precisely the reason why.

This is like putting someone in a cage, locking the only door, then saying, “It’s your fault for not finding another way out.” And it confirms one of the most important lessons we can draw from this whole gay marriage debate: The Religious Right is made up of a bunch of assholes.

We feel young Republicans and conservatives are open-minded and, in some ways, are very different from their parents’ generation. That doesn’t mean we are ready to stand for allowing the legal definition of marriage to be stretched into areas it does not belong for the pursuit of convenience or social pressure.

Go fuck yourself.

Is the ability to visit your spouse in the hospital a matter of “convenience”? If you think it is, then you really are a completely inhuman piece of shit. And the state legislature of Oklahoma is starting to fill up with these. I keep hoping that the next election will give it a good flush, but find myself disappointed year after year.

Sigh. Why do you do this to me, Sooner State? Why?