In which I respond to a whiny, hypocritical bigot – on another blog [updated x2]

I’m not usually one to tackle the nonsense of random kooks and cranks from around the Web; most of the time, a casual smirk or derisive chuckle is all they elicit from me. Every now and then, though, one comes along and says something particularly poignant in its stupidity, ignorance or vileness, and I feel … compelled to respond. Such a thing has now happened, and in this case, it’s something that I think should be posted on this blog as it illustrates quite clearly just what sort of irrational and bigoted mindset that fighters for gay marriage (and other civil rights) are opposed to in their quest for justice and equality for all.

First, a tiny bit of backstory. PersonalFailure over at Forever in Hell wrote a short post touching on a bit of twaddle from right-wing crank Who is John Galt? of the ever-so-ironically named Good Sense Politics blog, who basically made the argument that when Cindy and Meghan McCain wrote in defense of same-sex marriage – specifically, in support of the anti-Prop 8 trial underway in California (which I fully agree with) – that they were affronting, not just free speech (an accusation that’s stupid enough already), but democracy itself (which … boggles the mind).

Anyway, getting to the point. A few comments later, John Galt (let’s call him/her that) him/herself dropped by and left this nugget of brilliance:

It your view that California voted to deny gays of their rights. It is our view that the Supreme Court ruled to deprive us of our rights (ie. the right to get married, since redefining marriage destroys its meaning). You say, "What right does the majority have to tell a minority they can't get married?" We say, "What right does a minority have to force a majority to change their time and religiously-honored, most sacred institution to comply with the whims of a few troubled people?" We are not stopping you from making any kind of relationship with anyone you want. We are not forcing you to do anything. We just will not tolerate you forcing us to change our morals and enshrining anti-religious/anti-marriage bigotry in law.

Now, naturally, being the grievously SIWOTI-afflicted Net user that I am, I immediately launched into a comprehensive (if not exhaustive) rebuttal to rebuke all these absurd claims and fallacies … but in doing some research on this John Galt person, I went to his/her blog and only needed to spend all of thirty seconds glancing around before I’d had my fill and trotted out. Such a glance indicates, judging by the content of John Galt’s blog, that he/she is a bigoted, teabagging, Global Warming and Evolution-denying Birther (amongst other things). Naturally, I think it’s understandable that in the face of such revelations, well, spending too much time and effort on a post made to be read by sensible people, not closed-minded fools, had become rather pointless. So, I left this instead:

You know, I was gonna make an epic comment taking apart your silly, dumb, ignorant and bigoted claims, using evidence and common sense to explain just how and why what you said is so very silly and demonstrably wrong, and illustrate how you pretty much ignored everything said before now …

But then, I checked out your blog in full (having only read the post-in-question previously).

You know what I then figured? Why bother.

What can I say? When there’s nothing more to be said, there’s nothing more to add.

A few comments later, and John Galt returned with the sort of utter mindless nonsense that sparked the idea for this post to begin with:

Well, you're all welcome to Good Sense, but you must know that it won't be worth your time if all you can do is multiply synonyms of "bigot." (Sorry Joe) You can keep pretending that only your views make sense and therefore there is no need to have a logical, rational discussion, but then you must accept the fact that many people won't take you seriously. I'm not going to be bullied by your name-calling and dogmatic dismissal of clear and rational reasoning. I'm not afraid of your anti-religious, anti-family rhetoric. (Thank God for the first amendment!) In fact, I am happy to see it because it proves my point much better than I could ever say it.

You will lose because you are self-contradictory. You say you stand for freedom of conscience and yet you ruthlessly ridicule our religion and morals. You say you only want to support love, but you yell out hate-filled rhetoric. You claim that gay marriage is not only not harmful to children or society, but have the audacity to claim it is BETTER than real marriage. Well, that claim not only goes against all conventional wisdom but does not stand up to the test of reason. Your position, your tactics and who you are are the reason that so-called "gay marriage" is failing. You cannot sell such a fallacy to America.

Being subscribed to the comments, I was immediately made aware when this fresh batch of bullshit came out of the metaphorical oven, all nice and steamy and just begging to be torn apart. So, with a certain amount of vindictive glee, I went forth and proclaimed …

You again?

A) Ridiculing religious beliefs (and anything else) is not an affront to “freedom of conscience” (or, for the matter, free speech). It is, in fact, the very expression of our freedom of thought and speech that allows us to share our opinions that what you say and think is stupid, wrong and bigoted.

B) Are you seriously trying to lecture us on employing “hate-filled rhetoric”? Sorry, but stop projecting. You’re the one who is labeling millions of good and decent people, who happen to be sexually attracted to others of the same gender, as “perverts”, “troubled people”, and etc. This only shows how fundamentally bigoted you are, if you are unable to comprehend how a person’s sexual attraction has absolutely nothing to do with anything of anyone else’s business. And if you honestly believe that calling intolerant folks (like you) who despise these people and would seek to deprive them of their right to marry (like you do), “bigots”, is wrong, then you have a neurological issue.

C-a) No, gay marriage is not harmful to children, society, or your neighbor’s pet parrot. It only affects LGBT people, in the sense that it provides them the legal right to wed those they love. (I would now demand from you any sort of evidence, explanation or reason showing how and/or why same-sex marriage is detrimental to anyone in any way, then, that’d be a waste of my typing, wouldn’t it?)

C-b) When the hell has anyone ever claimed that gay marriage was somehow superior to traditional marriage? This is nothing but a pure and facile fabrication. If you expect to be taken seriously (and much less treated with respect), it would be a good idea not come into the ring with outright lies about us and our words and beliefs, you dishonest moron.

You are nothing but a transparently pathetic, dishonest and cowardly little bigot, John Galt. You whine about how mean and wrong we are, yet you come to us with nothing but lies, weaseling and blatant hypocrisy that could choke an elephant to death. You claim to support the First Amendment and freedom of thought/freedom of speech, yet shrivel up and snarl whenever your precious fallacious views are challenged and/or debunked. You claim to espouse logic and rationality, yet are filled to the brim with preconceptions, intolerance and willful ignorance. You know nothing of what you argue about, and yet have the audacity to waltz in here (and anywhere else) and assert that we, individuals obviously far more intelligent and knowledgeable than yourself, are the ones who are employing fallacies and distortions.

Unfortunately for you, we will not lose. Look around: gay marriage is being approved across the country faster than ever before, and the rate is only increasing with time. Countless polls, surveys and data prove this. Your time of intolerance, bigotry and denial of rights to others on the basis of anything, from their race or religion to, yes, their sexuality, is coming to an end, and fast. Better just weep a little tear and get used to it.

Admittedly, not too bad considering I’ve at the moment been up for over 48 hours with a total of 2½ hours of sleep in between. But then, sometimes, idiots and bigots have a knack for making things easier for you by not only ducking into the punch, but running out in front of a speeding train. I especially enjoy taking on the overtly hypocritical types – they just make things so much both easier and fun.

(And for the record, before anyone asks: why, being a supporter of democracy, free speech and the likes, do I also support the anti-Prop 8 trial? Because I do not believe that people, even in a democracy, have the right to infringe upon other groups or minorities’ rights, regardless of how “free” or “public-controlled” a system is. Prop 8 is a pure travesty, and I support any measure to strike it down, regardless of whether it’s supported by popular agreement or not.)

---

UPDATE: (01/24/10 @5:20 PM) – John Galt has responded, of course. Let’s see: any refutations of my (or anyone else’s) points, any arguments at all?

LOL, this is your idea of a ration discussion?! Well Mr. Joé "Ad Hominem" McKen, I'm finding it hard to extract your clear points out of all of your hate speech.

To review, so far I (and all of my kind) have been called on this single page:

[Yeah, he/she brings them all up. Talk about a waste of time. Skipping ahead …]

Do you see what I mean when I said "multiplying synonyms for bigot"?

It would seem clear to me that anyone who would feel the need to spew forth this pile of excrement is certainly "troubled." ("Forever in Hell" also seems to be an advertisement for someone that is troubled, though admittance I do not know the story behind Personal Failure's title. Her name would also seem to indicate a bit of "trouble" as well.)

Joe McKen, I am completely willing to have a clean, reasonable argument with you, but I don't want to wade through your hate-speech. If your position is solid enough, you should be able to argue it without resorting to name-calling, bullying and personal attacks. Leave any personal issues you have with me (or think you have with me -- wow, that's the very definition of being bigoted, isn't it? Hating someone you haven't even met because of their professed views...)at the door and make your best case. If you can do that, I will be waiting. If not, you don' have a very strong leg to stand on, do you?

Eh. I wrote back (of course):

A) Yes, we know what we write. You don’t really have to repeat it all.

B) Insults and pointy words to not make a discussion any less rational. Less civil and respectful, perhaps. There is a difference.

You want a rational argument? Get the ball rolling, then: pull up one single credible argument for your views, one that hasn’t been debunked or shown to be utterly false, or that relies upon religious ideology (which we place absolutely no credence in whatsoever). Bring up statistics showing how traditional marriages are failing as a direct result of the advent of gay marriages. Pull up some research denoting a sudden influx of horrible things happening now that gays are allowed to wed. (And, of course, don’t mistake correlation for causation. That don’t fly here, either.)

Go on. Do it. Bring up your arguments.

C) You complain about being this not being a “rational debate”, yet you use no hint of evidence or reason to support your claims and assumptions (and this is when you don’t outright and knowingly lie, as you did above). That is why I label you as a hypocrite. Care to refute me?

D) You complain about “hate speech”, yet obviously have no idea what it even is. To refresh your memory: “hate speech” is inflammatory and derogatory verbiage aimed at someone aimed at solely their ethnicity, religion, appearance, sexuality, etc. – anything that would make them part of a minority. Insulting someone and calling them a bigot, liar, idiot, etc. does not equate to hate speech, no matter how much you’d like it to be so. No-one is attacking your person for your religion, or political beliefs. We are attacking your religion and political beliefs themselves. Learn the difference.

E) No, I do not hate you. I don’t even despise you. I hold no animosity – or any feeling of any kind – towards you at all. I simply see you as a dishonest whiner who claims to espouse rationality, yet piles on fallacies and nonsense in the very next breath. Such is my impression of you, not my feelings for you as a person.

~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Now, go ahead. How and/or why does or would gay marriage be, in any real way, shape or form, detrimental to traditional marriages, or society, or children, or anyone or anything at all? Especially considering every single bit of research and data that comes to light about gay marriage and its effects only serve to explicitly and wholly destroy such claims?

Really, just one good argument would make my day.

I’ll be waiting. (In the same sense as I’m waiting for my next ear infection.)

---

UPDATE: (6:30 PM) – John Galt departs:

LOL!!! Well, I guess I should have known this is not the place for a rational discussion on these topics. If you can't even own up to your own biases and name-calling, there is not any chance that we can have a civilized discussion and actually learn anything from eachother.

Good day gentlemen. You are burning your own crusade to the ground by your own hatred and selfishness. That makes me much more confident for the future.

… So I guess that’s that. And here I was half-hoping for an epic flame war. *sighs*