Thursday, February 12, 2009

Wackaloon fundie denial

So, you should go read this article: http://www.newsweek.com/id/182531/page/1

This man, Richard Mouw, is fucking delusional. Quoth Mr. Mouw (can I call him Dick? Let's call a spade a spade and a Dick a Dick):

I voted for the ban. As an evangelical, I subscribe to the "traditional" definition of a marriage, and I do not want to see the definition changed... Does that mean I want to impose my personal convictions on the broader population? No.

I don't think that's the sort of person you can have a rational discussion with.

But HAY! All the quabbling over Prop 8 made him OMG SO SAD GUISE ;_; CANT WE JUST TALK IT OVER!!!1111LOL KEKEKE^_____^!!!1111!!!!!!!11

No, we can't. Aside from the fact that "I voted for Prop 8 but I don't want to impose my views on anyone" makes no sense at all, it's also difficult to talk to someone who refuses to recognize decades of anthropological research on how marriage is *actually* traditionally defined (that would be: there is no good definition). But hey, that could just be my anthropologist bias talking. Or my science-loving, need-to-have-facts bias.

Dick also provides us with this gem:

My friends and I have argued that the Bible supports racial justice, gender equality, peacemaking and care for the environment—views that often draw the ire of the worst kind of fundamentalists. But none of that seems to matter to folks who don't like our views about same-sex relations. Because we also believe that the Bible frowns on sexual intimacy outside of marriage between a man and a woman, we are being relegated to the margins of the civil dialogue.

Um? You can't have the Bible both ways. Either you are picking and choosing what you want to follow, or you are taking it at its literal word. It is either the literal Word of God, or it is not. Either your wife is your slave, or she is not. Either slavery is ok, or it is not. This man is no different from the "worst kind of fundamentalists" he's trying to distance himself from, who will wave their "God Hates Fags" signs and then stuff their faces at Red Lobster in their cotton/poly blend t-shirts. MORE BACON! Hate to break it to you, Weeping Evangelical Dick, but what you are doing with your "the Bible frowns on sexual intimacy..." is the same exact deal. And don't even try for a second to be all, "WAIT! I'm not like those bigots! I support equal rights when it comes to race and gender and everything else and I'm an environmentalist." Good for you. You are still a bigot. Don't believe me? Let's turn to your article once more:

For many of us, "normalizing" same-sex marriage comes down to deep concerns about the raising of our children and grandchildren. What will they be taught about sexual and family values in our schools? How will they be affected by the ways the entertainment media portray people with our kinds of views? And will we even be allowed to counter these influences in our homes and churches without being accused of "hate speech"?

Maybe when all kinds of families are seen as equally okay, our children will be taught that there's not one specific right way to be. All sexual orientations and gender identites are great. All kinds of families are great. All kinds of diversity are great.
Maybe when all sexual orientations and gender identities are normalized, all media will portray bigotry as intolerable.
Maybe then, too, all hate speech will be recognized for what it is, which is exactly what it is: hate speech. And people like you won't be able to justify it by pulling out the Jeebus card. Sure, you'll still be able to say it, just like the KKK can still say what they say. But people will be more willing to call you out on your bullshit.

No, Dick, we can't talk about it. I don't have respectful conversations with people who try to veil their hate speech as something that God told them to do. I'm deeply offended by the suggestion that God would support any kind of hate.

If Dick wants to talk, maybe he should do a little thinking before he speaks.

No comments: