The Lower Quote, As If You Didn't Know, Is By Richard Dawkins, Son.

Thursday, November 20, 2008

And For Chuck Norris - A Roundhouse Kick to the Argument

Chuck Chuck Chuck...what are we going to do with you? I think you've been stunt-punched in the face one too many times. Mr. Texas-Ranger has written a post over at Townhall that gets civil rights all wrong and thick-headed religious tyranny all up in your grill.

Chuck starts by stating some bad things that anti-prop 8 folks have been doing - and admittedly, they're sorta bad. Norris, however, seems to be unable to comprehend why people who have just had their basic rights trampled (one might say "roundhouse kicked") might be pissed beyond belief and not going to take it anymore.

Of course, Colt throws out a softball right off the bat with this comment on the vote:
First, there's the obvious inability of the minority to accept the will of the majority.
Yes, the tyranny of the majority. Ever heard of it, Chucky? There are some things that the majority just aren't qualified to rule on, and civil rights for minorities is one of them. Remember my recent post on interracial marriages? Didn't get to it, eh? Right....

I have to show this entire paragraph because it's just too stupid:
What's surprising (or maybe not so) is that even though 70 percent of African-Americans voted in favor of Proposition 8, protests against black churches are virtually nonexistent. And everyone knows exactly why: Such actions would be viewed as racist. Yet these opponents of Prop. 8 can protest vehemently and shout obscenities in front of Mormon temples without ever being accused of religious bigotry. There's a clear double standard in our society. Where are the hate-crime cops when religious conservatives need them?
Um, Chuck? The protests are mainly at Mormon temples because they, to a large extent, bankrolled the Prop 8 victory. Get your facts straight, Punchy.

The next paragraph is a complete clusterfuck. Mr. Kicks equates the passing of prop 8 and the stripping of equal rights from a minority group to the election of Barack Obama. Chuck's all, "well, my guy didn't win the election but you don't see me out in the streets, threatening people." No, because by Obama winning, no one was forcibly divorced from a loving relationship, you ignorant douchebag. Did Chuck drop out of grade four to pursue martial arts? Jesus.

There's so much in this letter to talk about. Norris next says he agrees with Chuck Colson who said:
"This is an outrage. What hypocrisy from those who spend all of their time preaching tolerance to the rest of us! How dare they threaten and attack political opponents? We live in a democratic country, not a banana republic ruled by thugs."
Well Chuck-n-Chucker, see, when those of us who are generally tolerant get walked the fuck over by religious theocrats who use faux outrage and ridiculous Oh we're such victims! tactics, we tolerant peeps get pretty pissed. As an aside, Colson's bit about a "banana republic" makes no sense, and the religious are the thugs. Look it up, Chucks.

Oooo...the big finale. Can you wait? I can't:
The truth is that the great majority of Prop. 8 advocates are not bigots or hatemongers. They are American citizens who are following 5,000 years of human history and the belief of every major people and religion: Marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman. Their pro-Prop. 8 votes weren't intended to deprive any group of its rights; they were safeguarding their honest convictions regarding the boundaries of marriage.(my bold)
I'm going to need a word that means REEEAAALLY REEEEAAAALLLY STUPID. My vocabulary is getting limited because The Stupid, It Burns
Chuck Norris is a moron who can't understand basic communicative language. Pay attention, Chuck: voting "yes" on prop 8 was exactly intended to deprive rights to gays and lesbians. That was its purpose. What a tremendous asshole. Maybe try slinging your bullshit on a movie set because it's not gonna fly around here, ActorBoy.

You know, there's really not any point to debating Chuck Norris. It's just like trying to talk to my cat - he may seem like he's listening to what I say, but then he just starts licking his balls and looking at me like I'm the asshole for being in the same room.

11 Barbaric Yawps:

At 21/11/08 1:50 pm, Blogger God's Soldier said...

I actually did read your little piece about comparing gay marriage to interracial marriage. I myself am in an interracial marriage and if anyone was to tell me our marriage was unnatural I would tell them to look at our beautiful children and say that. We naturally produced them with no assistance from technology. So I'm just not taking your comparison as an argument for homosexual rights. Homos are unnatural and perverse. As far as Chuck is concerned; he can be as dumb as he wants. I have never watched him hoping for an epiphany to fall out of his mouth. I personally hate the politically correct approach most Christians take today. I love my Lord Jesus Christ and I have hope that many will find salvation. I however am not believing that being a Christian should mean that I need to insult the great masses while trying to sound polite. I think you show more respect by saying what you mean. Anyway, I will never believe that someone was born a homosexual. It is not natural. Now I know someone is going to come out with the dogs doing each other comment. Well, I've seen dogs hump everything from brooms to my grandma's leg. I'm not going to sugar coat it; people don't deserve special rights because of the way they perform sexual acts and I will choose to be unreasonable in order to maintain the environment I want to live in. My kids can't pray in school, and I understand the reason for that. The homos should just stop complaining and make their private lives private again.

 
At 21/11/08 3:10 pm, Blogger Heathen Mike said...

Ok, first of all, thanks for reading my blog and thinking about what I write. You don't seem like just a knee-jerk Christian spouting doctrine like a moron. I like that.

What I don't like, however, is statements like this: "Homos are unnatural and perverse...I will never believe that someone was born a homosexual. It is not natural."

I'm going to assume that you think homosexuality is "unnatural" because of what the Bible says. Please correct me if I'm wrong. As to the second part of that quote, I'll repeat what I mentioned in my post to you - Did you choose to be straight? If your being married to a woman is just what you like, it's your "nature", if I may, then why is it so hard to believe that others have a different nature?

You say this: "My kids can't pray in school, and I understand the reason for that. The homos should just stop complaining and make their private lives private again. "

Ok, two quick things. Your kids CAN pray in school, but the school can't have a prayer that all the kids have to say. Your kids want to say a little prayer to themselves before a test, that's kool and the gang. But because the private religious beliefs of families are just that, private, they have to be kept out of the public sphere.

Just like your religion-based views on "homos". They belong in your private life, not in the public sphere. You can't discriminate against a minority (sorry, marriage is not just a religious thing anymore - I'm not religious at all, as you know, and I'm married) because you disagree with what they are/do/stand for.

 
At 21/11/08 7:20 pm, Anonymous pendens proditor said...

Like a lot of American Christians, I think he got his history education in church. 5000 years? Sexuality wasn't very rigidly defined even 2500 years ago (see: the Greeks). You weren't heterosexual or homosexual. You were just sexual. It was all a little bit like prison. And monogamy certainly isn't in our DNA.

What he'd recognize as a "sacred union" is a somewhat recent development. Only for a fraction of the history of marriage has it been primarily about love between two people. There are cultures even today that see that as a minor concern.

 
At 22/11/08 1:42 am, Blogger Flit said...

@God's Soldier

"people don't deserve special rights because of the way they perform sexual acts"

But people who perform sexual acts with members of the opposite sex should have the special right to marriage?

I think you are getting special confused with equal.

 
At 22/11/08 7:11 pm, Blogger God's Soldier said...

No, I don't think it is unnatural because of my religious beliefs. I believe homosexuality is unnatural because it serves no beneficial purpose to the biological make up of the world. Two heterosexuals having sex will produce more humans. Oh and before you make another obvious statement Mr. Proditor make sure you change your handle to CPT. Obvious. It will fit you better. Yes, I was naturally attracted to my wife. It's natural for a species to want to reproduce. Wow, Flit, you got me. While I have logical reasons for not approving homosexuals; my moral beliefs call on me to be biased against them. I oppose what I believe is wrong. Not just homosexual lifestyles, but all things I think are wrong, to include my own faults. In the end I am always motivated by what my God says. I concede. To Mike and Flit, not CPT. Obvious.

 
At 22/11/08 8:58 pm, Anonymous staggerlee said...

It seems the jebusites are just quibbling about the use of the term marriage to describe the union between two consenting gay adults. If they aren't the bigots i think they are they should have no problem with my solution: Let the babies have their bottle, from now on all marriages conducted by the state will be called a civil union (man-woman, man-man, woman-woman i say even let polyamorous adults unionize, humans are not by nature monogamous)and have all the rights and responsibilities once given to the "traditional" term of marriage. A neo-marriage will be only consecrated by the church and have no legal rights within the eyes of the government (unless a civil union is also acquired), a church marriage will be a marriage in name only and, although i can't think of any, will endow the married party to whatever "rights" they can have within the confines of the church, synagougue, etc. oh yeah and in uh whatever "afterlife" belongs to their belief. In other words it'll be meaningless in the eyes of the government. Oh and gob's Soldier where do you find that homosexuality is "unnatural and perverse"? Homosexuality, while not the norm in the animal kingdom, happens with animals ask any animal behaviorist or zoologist. By that i mean one with a legitimate degree, not some Bob Jones, Liberty Univ. graduate in biology or zoology (do they even have those? If they did i assume it's not an acredited degree, shit it better not be).

 
At 22/11/08 10:10 pm, Blogger Heathen Mike said...

Hey GS,

The only thing I have to add here is that you said: "I believe homosexuality is unnatural because it serves no beneficial purpose to the biological make up of the world. Two heterosexuals having sex will produce more humans."

Ok, so what about oral? I mean, if sex is only for procreation, then why give head? I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you've gotten at least one blow-job (and I'm honestly not trying to be gratuitously vulgar here) in your life, and have reciprocated to at least one woman. What was the point of that? Oral sex is in no way beneficial to the biological make up of the world.

Two heterosexuals will, indeed, more often than not, produce more people. Sometimes those kids are unwanted and end up in foster care, group homes and government agencies where, from time to time, caring, loving, nurturing homosexual couples will bring them in and raise them as their own. No statistics show that the children are in any way harmed by this.

I understand that you have your opinions, but, again, those are not what your government (or mine) can act or legislate upon.

To Staggerlee: I totally agree. Civil Unions for everyone and that's what the government recognizes and garners the partner benefits. Marriages should be a religious ritual like Catholic confirmation or first communion/first confession.

 
At 23/11/08 10:58 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

God's Soldier - If sex between a man and woman is meant only for procreation then why do pregnant women still enjoy having it?

 
At 28/11/08 12:26 am, Blogger Yazbec said...

I have a little something to add here, though I am a bit late to the party! I think its important for us to keep our eye on the ball here, and talk about the reason most people get married. They LOVE the other person!
Everyone keeps talking about where people put their respective sex organs and what is and is not natural. Its not about the fucking! Its about how I as a hetero male fell in love with my wife and we decided to form a life commitment with one another. If we never had sex, we could still love and be a heterosexual marriage.
This is the big problem here for you GS; You say that your problem is from the 'unnatural' sex, since it serves no purpose. What you do when you try to outlaw marriage between two people is to invalidate their love for each other. In culture, all cultures as far as I know, public proclaimation and recognition of your bond is a very integral part of the loving experience. How you can be so obtuse as to think its hunky dory to be against two people being married because of your religious beliefs when just 50 YEARS AGO religious people made the exact same claim about your marriage! Do you feel its fair to deny your marriage, just because you are interracial?
And I will take that bait you put out; Those nice religious people who were just protecting the sanctity of marriage back then would have said your children were unnatural and an abomination!

I want to say this in the nicest way possible while still being true to point; It blows me away that you can feel justified denying someone a basic human right based on a trait they have when that exact same thing was done to couples who shared YOUR traits just a half century ago! And even for the same reason, religion.

 
At 28/11/08 12:26 am, Blogger Yazbec said...

Oh, and first time commenting; long time lurker! Thanks for writing, Mike.

 
At 28/11/08 6:58 am, Blogger Heathen Mike said...

Well thanks for both reading and commenting, Yazbec!

 

Post a Comment

<< Home