The bigots just can’t help themselves…

News broke today that the Minnesota House of Representatives passed a bill that would legalize gay marriage. Now it goes to the state Senate on Monday, and then to the governor, who has said he will sign it if the Senate passes it. With Maryland, Maine and Washington passing gay marriage last year, and Delaware, Rhode Island and possibly Minnesota and Illinois this year, the tide has clearly turned on this issue and gay marriage is now on the offensive rather than on defense. Which is a wonderful, awesome fucking thing!

But you know something about bigots? They tend to be sore fucking losers and whiny little shits. Hell, there are still people in the South who can’t get over the fact that they lost the Civil fucking War, and when I was growing up in Oklahoma there were still nitwits (including several in my own family) who hadn’t gotten over school de-segregation.

And so with the announcement that Minnesota is now on the path to finally treating gays like human beings with equal rights, the bigots feel the need to use the power of the internet to let everyone who reads the USA Today article linked above what brain dead butt sniffers they are. (Quick note: USA Today’s formatting on their website is horrendously ugly. I don’t know who designed it, but they should be fired.) Here’s a sampling of the type of comments that one can expect to find on just about any article about people treating gays as equals.

Edward Brantley · Top Commenter · Gibbs High School

OH Boy! You can really smell the KY jelly burning now.

As we all know, homosexuals live lives of constant, uninterrupted buttfucking. If a gay man removes his cock from an asshole for even a moment, it creates a rift in space time that consumes all of the universe.

Edward here is pretty typical. Whenever a god-humper hears about homosexuality, their mind immediately defaults to the Buttfucking setting. They seem to think that’s all there is to gay people’s lives, and that gay people are just as obsessed with sex as they are.

Kevin P Hawkins · Top Commenter · Utep

Morally this is appauling. Regardless that I find homosexuality perverse and immoral. They should be entitled to the same benefits that married people have. While I disagree that they should give them the status of marriage. THey should get an official endorsement to their union…

Well, I find the Bible to be rather apPAULing too (see what I did there?).  Although it is somewhat refreshing to see the vestiges of a reasoning brain poking through the thick, obstreperous scar tissue of religious indoctrination that Kevin has been given in place of a functioning brain. Maybe someday he’ll realize that calling harmless relationships “appauling” is just as ludicrous as seeking to prevent them. Maybe.

Horest Alers · Top Commenter

Homosexuality is destructive to a stable , moral society , why should it be encouraged by allowing it to be given equal status? Let the perverts keep their sins in private until judgement day and their time in Hell.

Horest, unfortunately, is more typical. People like Horest are why we can’t have nice things in this country.

Kevin P Hawkins · Top Commenter · Utep

Iamnot Theuniverse so being against a perverse and immoral choice of lifestyle is socially ignorant? IF you mean by shielding my family from socializing with those who behave in an unexceptable manner than I consider that a complement…

Damn it, Kevin. Here I was trying to be nice to you and commend you for showing at least a modicum of decency, and then you go and say something so stupid and hateful that I feel morally obliged to call you an assface.  Seriously, how is this any different from the people in the old South who felt the need to “shield” their pretty little white daughters from those dirty black men who just can’t help but rape helpless white women? Gay people are people. Like, human beings. They’re not dangerous to you or anyone else. Get your fucking head out of your fucking ass, you bigoted cocksucker.

Horest Alers · Top Commenter

All the sick godless perverts are finally getting their way with gutless, godless lawmakers. Just keep lowering the moral level of America folks. Whats the next sin to be encouraged? We have easy abortion, divorce, fornication , cohabitation, sodomy , free porn on the web, vulgar and blasphemous language and perverted sex on tv. Satan is really loving the USA these days. We should take ‘ In God we trust’ off our money because its obvious as a nation we do not.
This is one of those situations where someone accidentally says something reasonable for wholly unreasonable reasons. Yes, we should in fact remove God from our money. But simply because he doesn’t belong there at all. Not everyone trusts in god, and our money should reflect that.

And if there is a Satan, I hope he does love the USA. God’s an asshole, and, as Bill Hicks said, at least Satan fucking jams.

Sabrina Akins · Top Commenter · Administrative at Federal Contractor

Not everyone follows your version of Diety.And I thank the Lord & Lady everyday I live in a country where that is the case.

Horest Alers · Top Commenter

Unfortunately yes. But God ( Jesus ) is God and his word is true whether you believe it or not.

As Sabrina is unfortunately learning, arguing with a god-humper is like arguing with a broken calculator. You could try carefully explaining to it that what it says is wrong, but when you push its buttons it’ll just spew out the same bullshit without any regard to what you just said, because that’s all it knows how to do.

David Bell · Top Commenter · Ashburn, Virginia

Such a sad, sad day in the U.S.

Jesus fuck. I actually had to wipe huge crocodile tears off my screen after reading that one. Yes, David, it’s so sad that people you don’t know and who’ll have no effect on you will have the same rights as you. Sad, sad, sad.

Joshua Hoyle · A Beka Academy Homeschool

First off, i would like to scold the Hetrosexuals and the Christians who have acted foolishly and unkindly to homosexuals in this conversation. Yes, the truth must be pointed out, but dont forget that all men are equally depraved, because at our core being we are most wicked (some just have decided to cultivate their depravity a little more than others). Concerning homosexuality: One, It does in fact, uproot the establishment of the home. A simple study of History will prove this. Two, It does decrease comfortable, vibrant living in the long run (again, a simple study of history will explain this). Three, I would like to ask a homosexual one question: Have you ever in your lifetime experienced or seen any form of sexual promiscuity, or a form of abuse, whether sexual or emotional (i.e., an abusive father [sexually and/or violently], absent father, sexually promiscuous father, angry father, uncaring father)? Four, Homosexuality is Biblically described as Sodomy. If you are Homosexual and you still believe the Bible is true, please, look into the Scriptures and understand that that is no way of living, and that it is in fact, sin.
Read Romans one, read the Law (the Pentateuch), or look at history and you will see that all societies that embraced that lifestyle crumbled at an alarming pace. Acient Rome, for example, decreased in morality first; it then decayed in its Leadership and National strength. I care about God’s creation, mankind. I care about all homosexuals; therefore i cannot allow my fellow man be decieved. Look to your Creator, men.

Another comment that starts out looking almost vaguely like something a sane person might call reasonable, but then rapidly plunges into a morass of madness and inanity. The god-humper’s brain is like poor Sisyphus, forever doomed to push the boulder of an idea up the mountain of reason, and just when it looks like he might reach the top–WHAM! The boulder falls back and disappears into the depths of stupidity, where the beleaguered brain must sadly follow to retrieve it.

A student of history can easily see where Joshua’s thinking falls apart. It was actually after the Roman Empire was converted to Christianity that things really began to go south with them. “Morals” had less to do with it than bad planning and leadership, anyways. And many civilizations, such as ancient Greece, were thriving during a time when homosexuality was quite commonplace. There is no evidence from history that homosexuality does any damage to a civilization.

But then, who needs evidence when you’ve got so many people to hate and disparage?

Advertisements

New Game: Bullshit Bigot Boilerplate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let’s find out!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

mar·riage [mar-ij] Show IPA

noun

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

b.a similar institution involving partners of the same gender: gay marriage. Antonyms: separation.
Yep. Pretty specific.
To include homosexuals under the same centuries old identification denigrates the past and current relationship of millions of persons in a marital union.
“My own rights suck if other people get them too!” 20 points in BBB.
It is not homophobic to have this opinion or belief.
It most certainly is. You honestly believe that someone else merely being able to marry somehow magically harms your marriage. If that’s not an utterly irrational fear of gay people, then I don’t know what is.
Legalizing gay unions and calling the union a marriage will flaunt cultural mores and the sensibility of millions of people.
Fuck their rights! What about MY FEELINGS?
It is as ridiculous as calling one of the partners in such a relationship the wife, if both partners are male; or calling one of the partners in such a relationship the husband if both partners are female.
But asserting that you must prevent people you don’t even know from marrying because the mere possibility of them marrying denigrates your own marriage? Nothing ridiculous about that at all. Unless you’re totally “biased”, by which I mean you’re a separate human being with thoughts that somehow don’t correspond to my own.
(15 points in BBB for naive doxastic solipsism.)
Additionally, Mr. Rodricks chose to discuss other concerns that Dr. Carson has expressed.
How dare he? I’m so offended by the concerns Rodricks expressed about the concerns Carson expressed, that I must write in to the Baltimore Sun to express my concern! There’s a bonus 20 points if he follows this up with a statement that shows a complete and utter lack of self-awareness…
Mr. Rodricks obviously disagree with Dr. Carson on a range of subjects. But when he implies that all those who agree with Dr. Carson are to be disregarded, one wonders who set him up as an authority on anything?
This brilliant insight on the nature of political debate was brought to you by William Engle, Authority on Who’s an Authority on Anything. 20 points!
If anything, Mr. Rodricks’ column reflects the views of a man who has no tolerance for any point of view other than his own.
Because when people write something that says they disagree with someone, that means they have no tolerance, and that’s why I’m writing in to disagree with him! 2x multiplier on the previous lack of self awareness, for a total of 40 points!
(And another 30 points for the tired cliched tu quoque of mistaking disagreement for intolerance, all while intolerantly insisting that other people can’t get married because it causes evil Leprechauns to destroy your own marriage.)
Come to think of it, this game sucks. The bigots make it too easy.