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

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.

Idahopeless: More Marriage Police

So a while back the marriage police in Oklahoma were shifting their focus to attacking straight people’s marriages, since there was nothing left for them to fuck the gays over with. But the Okie godbots aren’t alone. Now the mashed potatoes between the ears of several Idaho marriage police have developed this bright idea:

BOISE, Idaho (KBOI) – A number of Idaho lawmakers are targeting a topic they say should be taboo on television – premarital sex.

Yes, we must ban premarital sex on TV. Because not depicting it means it’ll stop existing, obviously. As we all know, back in the 50s when you couldn’t even use the word “toilet” on TV,  people didn’t shit.  Instead they excreted digested food as golden Prayer Nuggets that floated immediately up to heaven to redound to the glory of god.

And they’re taking a symbolic stand.

“Symbolic stand” is politicalese for “time-wasting pandering”. Of course they have no hope of actually banning premarital sex on TV, but Idaho has no shortage of sanctimonious fuck-buckets who clinch their shit-speckled assholes any time someone fucks on TV. These cum stains, unfortunately, are often registered to vote and love to be reassured that getting upset about stuff like this is what actual humans do.

Idahoans are also thumbless (they broke ’em off in their asses), and therefore incapable of changing channels. I’m sure they’d appreciate this cynical gesture to the crippling busybody voyeurism that causes them to continue to watch a show that offends them so much.

Lawmakers are against references to premarital sex in dramas, comedies, reality and talk shows as well as advertisements.

The time machine the lawmakers used to travel here from 1955 is yet to be found. Scientists are still baffled at how they could operate any such vehicle without thumbs or cerebral cortices.

“We need to take a stand and stand up for for the morality of what is best for the citizens of Idaho,” said Rep. Darrell Bolz, (R-Caldwell).

I hereby declare that if you cup a boob to which you are not lawfully betrothed, then I shall bravely and mightily relegate you to late night cable! For I am so strong and so brave and so powerful that I cannot abide by even the existence of a TV show that in any way makes me even slightly uncomfortable! Also, you liberals are such pussies! Raarrrr!

The measure that easily passed the house state affairs committee would urge the federal government and the FCC to prohibit the portrayal, even implied, or even the discussion of premarital sex on TV between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m.

Ah, the FCC. The government’s big FUCK YOU to the first amendment.

It’s important to note that they want even discussing sex outside of marriage to be banned. This is a classic right wing approach to governing: If something doesn’t fit your worldview, then force the entire world to stick their fingers in their ears and go “LALALALALALA”, and the problem vanishes.

But this isn’t mere solipsism or Berkeleyan idealism. The best way to control the cultural dialogue is simply to prevent it from happening altogether. No one can point out how pig-fuckingly stupid your ideas are if the topic can’t even be brought up for discussion.

The measure that’s moving forward is not a bill. Under the rules of the Idaho Legislature, it’s called a Joint Memorial and is simply a symbolic statement.

The statement symbolizes the hundreds of thousands of votes that the people of Idaho flushed down the [censored] by electing these [censored] dribbling [censored] [censored] who waste tax payers’ money on [censored] [censored] [censored] with a goat’s [censored] [censored] and a Roomba.

People KBOI News talked with call the effort a waste of time.

“I think its infringement on freedom of speech, don’t want the government telling me what I can or cannot watch,” Viola Hauck of Boise said.

Uhhh… “Waste of time” is not the same as “violation of the basic freedoms we Americans purportedly hold so dear that our country is said to be founded on them.” Is that previous sentence really supposed to lead into the one that follows? Because I don’t see it.

Supporters say the Idaho Constitution requires government to protect the virtue and purity of the home.

Supporters also would rather you didn’t know what they like to do with a potato and a tube of KY in their oh so pure and virtuous homes.

What else does this dingleberry Darrell Bolz have to say for himself?

HJM 2, sponsored by Rep. Darrell Bolz, R-Caldwell and six GOP cosponsors, cites the Idaho Constitution’s statement that “the first concern of all good government is the virtue and sobriety of the people, and the purity of the home,” and says, “Inappropriate and indecent material is being broadcast more frequently.” The measure also notes that the FCC is charged preventing the broadcast of indecent programming between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m., “when children might be watching,” and calls on the federal agency to “resume enforcement of traditional American standards of decency.”

Think of the children! We have no choice but to force our morals on others, because of THE CHILDREN!

Well, those were some rotten potatoes. For dessert, let’s see what those Freedom Loving Patriots who comment over at WingNutDaily have to say about this:

Snooper2 days ago

They need to ban Pornagraphy [sic] and the sex industry in this country once and for all! i’m [sic] tired of watching it. and Yes Bring [sic] back 7th Heaven!

William Wilson3 days ago

Abuot [sic] time! But it’s only a start. Also ban: prostatution, [sic] drugs, murder, and homos.

And bring back 7st Heaven. [sic]

The_Northwesterner William Wilson2 days ago

Ban Islam, Communism and feminism as well and we’ll really be ahead of the game.

wearyconservative1946 The_Northwesterner2 days ago

And illegal mexicans. [sic]

If these guys are the kind of geniuses we get from people watching Seventh Heaven, then I would suck the FSM’s dick with gratitude for the fact that it was cancelled.

But I still wouldn’t have Seventh Heaven banned, even if it turned people into the drooling, retarded illiterates that populate the WND commenting boards. I actually kinda like the First Amendment, in case you haven’t gathered.

Marriage Police – Not just for gays any more…

For all of you opponents of gay marriage out there, you might want to keep this in mind. A state legislator in Oklahoma is proposing a bill to restrict divorces. Having already amended the frickin’ state constitution to ban not only gay marriage but any type of recognition or benefits for gay couples, Oklahoma is now going after the straight couples who just don’t have enough Jesus in the bedroom.

Promoting strong marriages is an “obvious” way to improve the health, education, public safety and economy in Oklahoma, Rep. Mark McCullough said Monday.

Oh, yeah, “obvious”. When I see problems with education, economy, health and public safety, the first thing I think is, “This wouldn’t be an issue if only people were forced to remain in loveless marriages which make them utterly miserable.” I think this because I’m very stupid, shallow, and a giant fucking petty-minded busybody.

Joined at a news conference by ministers, social organizations and representatives with Oklahoma Marriage Initiative, the Sapulpa Republican said good government policy should address marriage and divorce and their impacts on families, children, poverty and crime.

The conference was held to kick off National Marriage Week, which continues through Feb. 14.

See this, straight people? Having already crushed gay marriage in Oklahoma, these organizations must now seek out another target. Did anyone actually think they would just stop after successfully fucking gay people over? Nope. Having made the gays in OK miserable, they’re now looking at you, straight people. This is what it feels like to have the government fucking with your personal life. You empowered these people, so you might as well get used to it. They won’t go away voluntarily.

“We’re not here to scold, we’re not here to be a judge — we’re here to say the more the family fails the more government has to get involved, and that’s just the facts,” McCullough said.

We’re not here to judge. We’re just here to say you’re a failure and that the government needs to wrest control of your genitals from you.

We declare you to be immoral. Then we control you. You know: “Facts.”

McCullough is the author of House Bill 1548, which would not allow married couples to divorce on the grounds of incompatibility if there are minor children living in the home, if they have been married longer than 10 years or if either party objects.

Like so much of the right wing dog shit out there today, this is “for the children.” How exactly is having divorced parents worse than having two parents who despise each other? Well, of course it’s not. But who gives a fuck about the reality of the situation when there are people out there living lifestyles I can’t treat like my own game of The Sims?

The bill is one of seven filed by legislators this year that would make it more difficult to divorce.

We’re seriously not far from legislators literally wiping their asses and submitting the soiled toilet paper to be law. They aren’t that far away from it.

Senate Bill 105 would legalize “covenant” marriages, which would require counseling both before marriage and during divorce; Senate Bill 961 would require parents undergoing divorces to attend classes and receive information about divorce’s adverse effects on children.

But remember, requiring you simply to register your semi automatic assault rifle is FUCKING COMMUNISM!!!!!!

Marriage occurrences in Oklahoma, according to the Center for Disease Control’s National Center for Health Statistics, was 7.2 per 1,000 people in 2010, tied for 20th in the nation. The divorce rate was 5.2 per 1,000 people, tied for third.

And instead of improving the situation, the only solution is just to use government force to compel people to stay together, even if their marriage is a complete mess that never should have existed to begin with.

Jesus love misery. And misery loves company. Especially if that company is small children who have no option but to spend their formative years in a loveless household, being raised by two people who shouldn’t even be in the same room with each other. You know, for the children.