That, in all seriousness, is an argument put forth by someone calling himself “American Way” (natch) in the letters section of the Concord Monitor. I’ve been going back and forth with this guy–whom I’d never heard of until today–in two different threads; one is here, and the one I’m about to discuss is here.
To spare you a trip to the paper’s Web site (although it might be worth it; comments read bottom to top), here’s a transcript of the pertinent excerpts of our back-and-forth.
American Way: You wrote: “Go back to agitating against gay marriage–at least there, you aren’t taxed by the need to think things through, you can just complain.” Love it when you folks bring up gay marriage and complain about those who know and understand how dysfunctional that really is. It shows that it bothers you that someone can call your sick agenda out. Thank you!
Chimpanzee Refuge: “Love it when you folks bring up gay marriage and complain about those who know and understand how dysfunctional that really is. It shows that it bothers you that someone can call your sick agenda out.”
There you go again. I’m a straight guy–how is this “my” issue (above and beyond standing up for human rights in general)? Whenever anyone uses the term “gay agenda,” I know he is a drop-dead imbecile, parroting crap he’s heard from other haters. Go ahead–what exactly is this “agenda”? You said it, so go ahead and define it.
In sum, “American Way” is a fact-twisting, resentful bigot who can only offer ad hominems because genuine arguments fail him, Luckily, his name is not apt.
AW: [something deriding me for taking up a minority victim cause and saying this made sense because I was a victim myself; someone must have reported this comment as a violation, because it’s gone.]
CR: I’d love to see you give an example of how I act like a victim, but I know you can’t. But it says a lot about you as a human being–none of it good–that you fling mud at straight people with the nerve to stand in favor of gay rights. Let’s see, I guess I shouldn’t care about racism or sexism, either, since by luck of the draw I wound up on the sunny side of those battles as well. Why any heterosexual people could be upset about two gays tying the knot when it plainly has zero effect on their lives is a mystery to me.
So stripping away all the rancor, why don’t youexplain what the negative impact on you or society of gay marriage/civil unions is. (Hint: “It sickens me” is not an acceptable response. Stupid people make my stomach turn, but I don’t call for their removal from society.)
AW: It validates the behavior and perverted unnatural dysfunction. It is only correct emotionally and we all know how emotions get in the way of intelligence….don’t we Chimp. It is anatomically, physiologically and biologically incorrect. Homosexuals asked for tolerance and then followed it up quickly with a call for marriage, etc. We gave an inch out of empathy and wound up being called bigots. Enough is enough. It sets up morality for a redefinition.
Yes stupidity and in your case, arrogance makes my stomach turn.
CR: I asked you to provide evidence of how gay marriage hurts heterosexuals like me and (I assume) you, with the caveat that your being viscerally offended was not a valid response. I respect you for answering, because your answers are somewhat short of convincing.
“It validates the behavior and perverted unnatural dysfunction.”
Hmmm. This sounds suspiciously like “Because it grosses me out and we can’t have laws in place that make this easier.” Sorry; please abide by the caveat. I might be offended by the sight of a 350-pound woman in a bikini at the beach, but that doesn’t mean I get to call for a law barring obese people from wearing certain types of swimwear.
“It is only correct emotionally and we all know how emotions get in the way of intelligence….don’t we Chimp.”
Speak for yourself. But how is something you admit is “correct emotionally” (whatever that means) harmful to people outside the sphere of operations? You’re not doing very well here. Remember the task: Explain how adult, consensual (that part was implied, but I’ll make it explicit) homosexual relationships or homosexuality itself damages others.
“It is anatomically, physiologically and biologically incorrect.”
Really? How on earth do gays and lesbians have orgasms, then? And why does homosexuality persist in the animal kingdom?
“Homosexuals asked for tolerance and then followed it up quickly with a call for marriage, etc. We gave an inch out of empathy and wound up being called bigots. Enough is enough. It sets up morality for a redefinition.”
I see. So your definition of “tolerance” is affording people of a given sexual orientation a certain status, but only enough to (hopefully) appease them. But then they get all uppity and start agitating for genuinely equal treatment! Some nerve.
I like the “WE gave an inch” bit, too, as if you’re at the center of arbitration of such matters. Believe me, you’re not one to determine morality. And of course, none of this has ANYTHING to do with how gay homosexing affects your life. I could just as easy complain that married people who rarely shower having threesomes destroys my marriage because it’s disgusting and dishonors the institution, but I’d be laughed out of the room if I did, and rightfully so.
My irony meter practically exploded when you shrugged off the “bigot” label. Bigotry is a failure to accommodate ingrained viewpoints other than your own even when presented with evidence challenging those viewpoints. Here, you’ve ignored the fact that you have nothing guiding your distaste for homosexuality except, well, distaste. And you know, you’re perfectly entitled to find gay sex disgusting–no one’s out to change you mind or force you to be mentally sympatico with this stuff. What you *don’t* get to do is use that disgust as a level to try to keep people from pursuing life, liberty, happiness, and all that. Since homosexual relationships per se are not harming anyone else, there is no valud reason in a free society to repress their rights. Your idea that they should be happy with whatever your definition of “tolerance” is marks you as a repugnant human being and is far more offensive that any of the witless insults you have flung my way.
Yet I respect your right to be a moron, because in the end you will not get your way. You’ll merely be loud, like the good ole’ boys were during the birth of the Civil Rights movement down South.
Yes, this is a giant, pointless wankfest, and the satellite goofballs like “Armyvet” (who complains that he “can’t vote Biblical”) don’t make it any more productive. Yet I’m astounded that someone could decide that some metaphysical concept of “tolerance” had been given a group of people, revolt against the idea of that group of people seeking bona fide equality, and complain of being called a bigot. It’s as if someone told me I needed to tone down my vulgar and chauvinistic language, and I turned around and said “What fucking right does that cunt have to say that? I mean, like a woman knows what chauvinism is!”
We do have a fun-loving citizenry.