The Gay Thing: Are Opponents Stupid, Ignorant, Confused...a Little Gay?

Grrr. I made the mistake (OK, for only the thousandth time) of checking out FreeRepublic to see what the nutty FReepers had to say about the Ted Olson/Proposition 8 story.

As is usually the case, there is widespread confusion/ignorance/stupidity on the subject of gay marriage, of gays in general, and basic logic. I'm sure some of it is willful ignorance. Some of it is the tendency of the intensely partisan to fit the facts into their worldview. Some are icked out by "the gay thing," and are trying to justify it. Others might be just a little too interested in the subject and thus must lash out for cover.

Unfortunately, the misinformation runs so deep, and in so many different directions, it is difficult to write about. I want to rebut every charge, but this post would then run the risk of never ending. So, instead, I am going to randomly pick a few quotes from FR and respond to them.

"Ted Olson has sold out... or come out."

Yeah, because every supporter of gay rights must be gay. Idiot.

"If same sex marriage becomes an actual "right" then plural marriage is sure to follow."

Why? It didn't follow from interfaith or interracial marriages. What is it about legal same-sex marriage that would automatically lead to polygamy?

"We don't need another great wedge issue dividing this country for decades."

Well, if anybody would know about wedge issues, it would be a FReeper. But I'd counter that after same-sex marriage has been legal a few years, people will stop caring--or even thinking--about the issue anymore.

"No one is denying homosexuals the right to marry a person of the opposite sex."

Sure, I could go marry a woman. Maybe have kids. Then after years of a loveless/sexless marriage, I'd probably leave her for a guy, or she'd leave me for a guy, or we'd both just remain unhappy. And people like this guy would then fault me either way. The argument is ridiculous.

"I think this will be bigger than Roe because adults do not want their children endangered by homosexuals."

What danger? What the hell are you talking about? I don't have kids, hell I don't even like most kids.

". . .when homosexual coitus can produce babies then homosexual unions meet the basic qualification for marriage. . ."

Because you can't get married unless you intend (and are able) to have children, and you can't have babies unless you're legally married. Right? Idiot.

"Homosexuals cannot be monogamous. Mono-'gamy' denotes a biological procreation homosexuals are incapable of with each other."

You're pissed at me for redefining "marriage," but then you go ahead and redefine "monogamy?" Unbelievable.

"If they let queers marry they open the door to anything and everything."

You obviously are unaware that slippery slope arguments are inherently illogical. Oh, and you are also unbelievable paranoid (or excited, it's hard to tell).

"It’s not about “equal rights” as much as it is about destroying the concept of the traditional family."

What secret meeting did you go to where "the gays" discussed this, and set it at the top of the "agenda?" Because they forgot to invite me. Seriously, this "destroying the family" crap is just that, a load of crap, only believed by arch right-wingers like this guy. And I thought the previous one was paranoid.

There is so much more, but once again I grow weary. Oddly enough, this particular topic was much less offensive than usual, if you can believe it.

Read more (if you dare) at: FreeRepublic.