Initially, I didn't have an opinion about same-sex marriage. Partly cause I didn't have any data to justify an opinion, and more importantly because I completely don't care. But now, thanks to the constant vociferations of same-sex marriage supporters, I've made up my mind.
Officialy, I'm now AGAINST gay marriage.
Not because I give a fuck if gays get married. Cause I don't. But just because the pro-gay-marriage lobby's arguments are straight douchebaggery.
Now you might think, the argument that the constitution seems to support gay marriage would be persuasive. Except it's not! You know why? Because in the case of polygamy, the Supreme Court already ruled that while it IS unconstitutional to outlaw polygamy, we're gonna do it anyway because it's in the best interest of society.
WTF???????
Well, whatever. There's your precedent. We're allowed to discriminate for the greater good of society.
Now some make the argument that gay marriage is NOT against the greater good because gays are no shittier parents than straights.
Really? Prove it.
In the case of polygamy, the "greater good" argument comes from the perception that polygamy somehow implies child abuse. Data supporting this view has never come to my attention. You know what HAS come to my attention though? The amount of child sexual abuse in Native communities. According to my former therapist, in some reserves as many as 96% of female children get molested. Therefore Natives should not be allowed to get married. Oh wait, that never stopped them having children! So let's just stop them having children. OMG THAT'S SO RACIST!
Ok, so you can't keep people from breeding no matter how high a percentage of sexual abusers are in their demographic. Unless their religion supports polygamy. So you can discriminate on SOME protected grounds and not others. Likewise in France, by the way, the Supreme Court has ruled that anti-semitism is illegal but anti-islamism is perfectly fine because, you know, freedom of speech.
What the FUCK are you talking???
Ok, so clearly, discrimination is perfectly fine, no matter what laws you have to the contrary.
So do we have good reasons to prevent gay marriage "for the greater good"? Who cares! It's not like we have good reasons for the rest, either. But my theory is, the conservatives (small C, people with conservative views, not the Cons) are right. All this behavioural stuff about spitting on morals, expressing oneself, not being told what to do, "celebrating our diversity", is all detrimental to society. In my considered opinion after reading history for three years, I think it is healthy for a society to have a mutually agreed and STRICT standard of acceptable behaviour. "Morals", if you will. "Morals" are good for society. And "morals" have to be conservative, by definition, because if they change all the time they're no longer a mutually accepted standard, they're just a fashion.
So am I against gay marriage because I favour conservative morals? No. Like I said, I don't care whether gays get married or not. The battle for a moral society was already lost a long time ago anyway; gay marriage is a symptom of it, not a cause. What I'm saying (and I don't expect you to read and understand it instead of having a knee-jerk reaction) is that it's actually a more valid "greater good" argument than the thing about polygamy.
Second reason why the pro-gay-marriage argument is douchebaggery is that it's not about "equality." Nobody wants "equality", and nobody has it. And those who talk about "equality" for gays are not agitating for the legalization of polygamy, or for the right of women to wear burqas and hijabs, or for treating the mentally ill with respect. And that's just three examples. In fact, I personally know at least one person who is pro-gay-marriage, anti-letting Muslim women dress themselves, violently anti-anyone who has a religion, and doesn't think twice about insulting me for having sought treatment for my bipolar disorder. Apparently, then, supporting gay marriage isn't about equality, and it doesn't make you a decent person, either, contrary to a popular line of thought. But to stay on the topic of this particular reason, I'm against gay marriage because the equality argument is just raw hypocrisy.
And third reason why the pro-gay-marriage argument is douchebaggery: because much of it is limited to calling non-supporters names. Such as bigots. Oh yeah? Buddy, you just lost every argument, EVER. Just as soon as you thought you could prove yourself right by proclaiming that the other side is "assholes and bigots" and whatever else you want to call them, you're out of every argument, ever. Because obviously you don't know how to have a conversation. Also because people adduce this argument because they have no rational ones: they're just certain they're right. And as we know, certainty comes from random chemical activity in the brain, not from being actually right.
And, you know what, I've just had enough of your bullshit. You want to call people bigots and assholes because they don't agree with you? Fine. I'm rubber, you're glue. I'm quite satisfied with you calling me a bigot. In fact, I'll take is as a compliment. You know why? Because I now have no respect for you and I'll be happy to make sure I'm not on your side. Why am I against gay marriage? Because YOU insulted the non-supporters instead of debating politely. Because I WANT you to think of me as an asshole and a bigot. Because I definitely do not want to be on your good side.
In summary, why I'm now against same-sex marriage:
1) because people think there is a valid argument against polygamy, hijabs and Islam;
2) because discriminating against some minorities and not others is discrimination squared;
3) and because the pro-gay-marriage crowd has been using abuse instead of arguments and I choose to be on the opposite side.
So go ahead and call me a bigot. I'll take it as a compliment.
Officialy, I'm now AGAINST gay marriage.
Not because I give a fuck if gays get married. Cause I don't. But just because the pro-gay-marriage lobby's arguments are straight douchebaggery.
Now you might think, the argument that the constitution seems to support gay marriage would be persuasive. Except it's not! You know why? Because in the case of polygamy, the Supreme Court already ruled that while it IS unconstitutional to outlaw polygamy, we're gonna do it anyway because it's in the best interest of society.
WTF???????
Well, whatever. There's your precedent. We're allowed to discriminate for the greater good of society.
Now some make the argument that gay marriage is NOT against the greater good because gays are no shittier parents than straights.
Really? Prove it.
In the case of polygamy, the "greater good" argument comes from the perception that polygamy somehow implies child abuse. Data supporting this view has never come to my attention. You know what HAS come to my attention though? The amount of child sexual abuse in Native communities. According to my former therapist, in some reserves as many as 96% of female children get molested. Therefore Natives should not be allowed to get married. Oh wait, that never stopped them having children! So let's just stop them having children. OMG THAT'S SO RACIST!
Ok, so you can't keep people from breeding no matter how high a percentage of sexual abusers are in their demographic. Unless their religion supports polygamy. So you can discriminate on SOME protected grounds and not others. Likewise in France, by the way, the Supreme Court has ruled that anti-semitism is illegal but anti-islamism is perfectly fine because, you know, freedom of speech.
What the FUCK are you talking???
Ok, so clearly, discrimination is perfectly fine, no matter what laws you have to the contrary.
So do we have good reasons to prevent gay marriage "for the greater good"? Who cares! It's not like we have good reasons for the rest, either. But my theory is, the conservatives (small C, people with conservative views, not the Cons) are right. All this behavioural stuff about spitting on morals, expressing oneself, not being told what to do, "celebrating our diversity", is all detrimental to society. In my considered opinion after reading history for three years, I think it is healthy for a society to have a mutually agreed and STRICT standard of acceptable behaviour. "Morals", if you will. "Morals" are good for society. And "morals" have to be conservative, by definition, because if they change all the time they're no longer a mutually accepted standard, they're just a fashion.
So am I against gay marriage because I favour conservative morals? No. Like I said, I don't care whether gays get married or not. The battle for a moral society was already lost a long time ago anyway; gay marriage is a symptom of it, not a cause. What I'm saying (and I don't expect you to read and understand it instead of having a knee-jerk reaction) is that it's actually a more valid "greater good" argument than the thing about polygamy.
Second reason why the pro-gay-marriage argument is douchebaggery is that it's not about "equality." Nobody wants "equality", and nobody has it. And those who talk about "equality" for gays are not agitating for the legalization of polygamy, or for the right of women to wear burqas and hijabs, or for treating the mentally ill with respect. And that's just three examples. In fact, I personally know at least one person who is pro-gay-marriage, anti-letting Muslim women dress themselves, violently anti-anyone who has a religion, and doesn't think twice about insulting me for having sought treatment for my bipolar disorder. Apparently, then, supporting gay marriage isn't about equality, and it doesn't make you a decent person, either, contrary to a popular line of thought. But to stay on the topic of this particular reason, I'm against gay marriage because the equality argument is just raw hypocrisy.
And third reason why the pro-gay-marriage argument is douchebaggery: because much of it is limited to calling non-supporters names. Such as bigots. Oh yeah? Buddy, you just lost every argument, EVER. Just as soon as you thought you could prove yourself right by proclaiming that the other side is "assholes and bigots" and whatever else you want to call them, you're out of every argument, ever. Because obviously you don't know how to have a conversation. Also because people adduce this argument because they have no rational ones: they're just certain they're right. And as we know, certainty comes from random chemical activity in the brain, not from being actually right.
And, you know what, I've just had enough of your bullshit. You want to call people bigots and assholes because they don't agree with you? Fine. I'm rubber, you're glue. I'm quite satisfied with you calling me a bigot. In fact, I'll take is as a compliment. You know why? Because I now have no respect for you and I'll be happy to make sure I'm not on your side. Why am I against gay marriage? Because YOU insulted the non-supporters instead of debating politely. Because I WANT you to think of me as an asshole and a bigot. Because I definitely do not want to be on your good side.
In summary, why I'm now against same-sex marriage:
1) because people think there is a valid argument against polygamy, hijabs and Islam;
2) because discriminating against some minorities and not others is discrimination squared;
3) and because the pro-gay-marriage crowd has been using abuse instead of arguments and I choose to be on the opposite side.
So go ahead and call me a bigot. I'll take it as a compliment.
4 comments:
"1) because people think there is a valid argument against polygamy, hijabs and Islam;"
If I understand you, you suggest here that any proposition that can be supported by bad arguments is wrong. As this is true of any proposition I can think of, this doesn't take us very far, does it ?
"2) because discriminating against some minorities and not others is discrimination squared;" and discrimination is not a problem for you, so you can rewrite the whole thing in very few words, such as: "I dont care about your rights, you pig, because a) the world is mean and b) there is a Greater Good and you're not part of it". I think that is not an argument, merely a feeling. Maybe you should have try to explain what you expect from discrimination for the greater good - and more precisely, any reader would be eager to know what exactly your version of greater good may be, because everything comes down to that.
"3) and because the pro-gay-marriage crowd has been using abuse instead of arguments and I choose to be on the opposite side." this is exactly the same point as 1.
so like any other reader I am glad to know your position (which I had indeed known for long), but I'm disappointed that you didn't even try to enforce it by real arguments.
and as always, let me apologize for my horrible english.
You didn't know my position for long since I didn't have one. And you clearly did not understand what I wrote.
sorry if you didn't, but let's admit you being in favor of gay marriage would have been a bit of a surprise... so maybe I just knew your opinion before you did (and I was not the only one, by the way).
No you didn't. You made it up according to how you see me. And you're not the only one. But that's your cognitions, not mine.
Post a Comment