So, one thing that always grinds my gears is when I see conservatives oppose gay marriage. Or, you know, more accurately, "marriage equality," because that's what it is.
Sometimes it pisses me off more than others.
Mostly, I react by sighing in exasperation and moving on, because I know that most people, regardless of political bent, are relentlessly stupid and prejudiced.
Sometimes, it comes from someone whose intellect, in other circumstances, I would normally respect.
THEN it pisses me off a bit more.
Yesterday, one of my acquaintances posted a "question" about gay marriage that I found intellectually dishonest, insulting to anyone with functioning brain cells, misleading, and generally hugely hypocritical given that same individual's previously stated views on other issues.
Which same was:
Can anyone tell me how "Definition of Marriage" violates the "Equal Protection" Clause? Every unmarried adult male has the ability to marry an unmarried unrelated adult female (and vice versa), REGARDLESS of race, age, creed, OR sexual orientation.
It took me a full fucking day to restrain my fury even to the extent that I have in the post below, which I'm sure anyone reading this will agree is "not very fucking much."
This is due to the fact that this individual - EXCEPT on this single topic - is someone with whom I agree almost every time; someone whose arguments - EXCEPT on this single topic - I consider well reasoned, well thought out, well phrased, and generally right; someone who - to other people, regardless of issue, frequently appears to be ideologically identical to me, because he uses many of the same arguments I do.
And yesterday I found out that this person doesn't understand the moral underpinnings of those arguments one tiny whit. This individual has been mouthing these viewpoints without comprehending their logical implications; without understanding how they relate to other ideas; why those ideas are important.
This offends me.
So after I got my fury under control enough to type in complete sentences, I wrote a reply to this individual.
I copied it below, leaving out only the individual's name; I did add one sentence to the end.
You guys tell me that you love it when I rant.
Game on.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I want, first, to say that I normally agree with the things you post, dude.
But I will call you out when you're wrong.
You're wrong.
That's fine, this is America, and so you have a right to be as wrong in your personal opinions as you want to be, but that doesn't actually make them not wrong.
So.
There are so, so many problems with opposing the freedom of adult humans to voluntarily enter into legally protected relationships with whoever they want.
First, there's the fact that in order to believe that the government has the right to do this, you have to believe that the government has the right to control even the most fundamental activities of its citizens in ways that have drastic, immediate, permanent effects on them. I thought Republicans believed in personal responsibility, small government, and individual liberty?
I guess you mean that, you know, "except for the gays."
That's ok. You can admit that that's how you feel. We'll come back to that point, if you're not ready yet, though.
Secondly, there's the fact that in order to oppose the freedom of adult humans to voluntarily enter into legally protected relationships with whoever they want, you have to believe that their relationship somehow affects yours.
I only know one group which openly, publicly preaches that the actions of others have such weight, such power, over your actions and freedom of choice that something they do, entirely for themselves, in which you are not included, results in you having an irresistible compulsion from Heaven to change your OWN behavior; that would be Wahhabist Muslims.
I had no idea you were in the Islamic Brotherhood, my friend. I bet you didn't either, but how else do you explain this? Gays, getting married, somehow makes you gay through osmosis, and thus you will be forced by a mandate from On High to marry another man? Maybe you're thinking that it "devalues" your relationship, which is - just like theirs - inherently only the business of the individuals actually in it; this is ultimately silly, as it presupposes that the relationships of others affect your own in, again, irresistible ways. People exist who beat their wives; by your "logic," here, you would be forced to also beat your wife because they do.
Thirdly, in order to oppose the freedom of adult humans to voluntarily enter into legally protected relationships with whoever they want, you have to believe that other people should be required to conform to your own beliefs and behaviors, in effect saying that you, because of your religious beliefs, are in a position of sufficient inherent and natural authority over others that you have a right to choose their mates for them; as I recall, God had a few things to say about such presumption, in your own religious texts. Or does that count only if the text you're quoting supports your ideas?
As I recall, God had something to say about picking and choosing from his instructions as well.
Fourthly, in order to oppose the freedom of adult humans to voluntarily enter into legally protected relationships with whoever they want, you have to believe that you somehow have the right to make their choices - moral, ethical, sexual, and otherwise - for them. As human freedom is the bedrock of our society, the cornerstone, in effect, of our entire civilization, you're essentially arguing the Marxist-Leninist point that individuals HAVE no inherent rights, and that the entire structure of our society is based on a lie. Are you really sure you want to make that your argument so you can avoid having to hear a man utter the words "my husband?"
Fifthly, in order to oppose the freedom of adult humans to voluntarily enter into legally protected relationships with whoever they want, you have to believe that defining marriage as a special protected legal status that only exists between specified, arbitrarily defined sets of people, in direct violation of the Tenth and First Amendments, in direct violation - yes, I will address it directly - of the equal protection clause by demanding that people behave in a way directly counter to their nature in order to conform to a standard designed specifically for people for whom that is not contrary to their nature, granting the government in perpetuity the power to define your relationship any way it so chooses by a simple majority of the imbeciles and morons we elect to Congress, somehow benefits society.
As a "conservative," you're supposed to oppose huge expansions of state power. In fact, I've SEEN you make the argument - opposing huge expansions of state power - that the best reason to oppose them, is that they are huge expansions of state power. Obamacare leaps to mind.
Sixthly, in order to oppose the freedom of adult humans to voluntarily enter into legally protected relationships with whoever they want, you have to believe that holding any of these views does not make you a tremendous hypocrite on a hundred levels, and invalidate your own arguments on every other single political, moral, or ethical argument you've ever made.
Sadly, that's wrong too.
Now, you'll notice - maybe - that there IS one, simple, logically consistent, absolutely correct, non-hypocritical, politically and ideologically consistent way for you to argue that people shouldn't be free to voluntarily enter into legally protected relationships with whoever they want.
Do you know what that is?
It's the argument that says that the government, at a federal level or any other, has no business legally recognizing human relationships and protecting them. Period. Full stop.
Sadly, that argument ALSO does away with legal protection for straight marriage, since straight marriage is a voluntarily entered, legally protected relationship between two adults.
Which, ultimately, means that in order to make that argument - the ONLY logically consistent argument against gay marriage that doesn't make you a huge hypocrite - you have to argue that you want the legal protections and recognition granted to straight marriages ended as well. Is that the argument you're making, here?
I didn't think it was.
Now, as promised, we return to the REAL argument you're making here, and in every post you make about this topic. Gays shouldn't be able to get married, because they're not REAL people.
It's ok. You can admit that that's what you're saying.
We're all waiting for you to have the intestinal fortitude, and the moral courage of your views, to come out in the open and just say it like that.
We all know that's what you really mean when you say these things.
We all think less of you for not being able to have the courage of your convictions and say so openly.
If you did, we'd think you're wrong, and ignore you, but we wouldn't really be MAD at you.
Well, except for ME. I will be - AM, goddammit - furious with you for being this idiotic. Because when you make that argument - "gays shouldn't get married because they're not REAL people" - you add one more voice to the chorus that thinks that EVERY ARGUMENT YOU'VE EVER MADE ON ANY TOPIC AT ALL is equally devoid of logic, good sense, and basic human decency.
And your OTHER arguments are NOT wrong.
Making this argument devalues every conservative who understands the moral basis of our system of government and our society itself.
You have a right, in the privacy of your own heart, to think gay people are somehow less than you. Less moral, less human, less in touch with their religion, what have you.
You do not - BY YOUR OWN CONVICTIONS, SIR, YOU DO NOT - have the right to try to pass off your own ignorance and prejudice into law.
Learn the distinction between belief and legislation. Learn it well, and understand it. You dishonor yourself, and every view you've ever expressed, by your failure to comprehend this one.
