Apr 21 2009

Wingnut on liberal media payroll redefines bigotry as justice

The rough green snake is over 2 feet long and drops from tree boughs onto your head without so much as a hey-ho-how's-your-toe.

The rough green snake is over 2 feet long and drops from tree boughs onto your head without so much as a hey-ho-how's-your-toe.

If only there were enough hours in the day. But there aren’t, so this here snake is all I got. And this here link.

Salon. Yeah, I’ve stopped reading it, too, but once in a while a blamer sends a link, and the next thing you know, there I am, writhing in pain over another liberaldudelational paean to liberaldudeliness. Today’s article, written by a self-proclaimed “wingnut” (as part of an implausible feature called “Ask a Wingnut”), purports to explain to dullwitted Salon readers the whole anti-gay-marriage point of view.

Essentially, the essay is an argument for the preservation of heterosexual marriage as the megatheocorporatocracy’s primary self-replicatory unit.

According to Salon’s “wingnut,” the conservative objection to gay marriage is not based, “in large part or small,” on bigotry. Rather, it is the uncouth manner in which homos seem to inflict their repellent selves on regular Americans that chaps the conservative hide. Conservatives apparently draw a distinction between homophobia and conserving “social traditions that, over time, have demonstrated that they exist for everyone’s benefit.”

Also, gay marriage would spoil religion — that bastion of socially sanctioned hate and ignorance — for the religious. Regular Americans love religion just the way it is! Their right to hate people based on the whimsy of ancient barbarian mystics is ordained by God. Homos must not interfere in the special relationship regular Americans have with the Supreme Being. I guess it might piss him off.

To sum up: marginalizing an entire class of people to preserve the social traditions of the dominant culture isn’t bigotry. The right to hate, it turns out, is essential for the greater good.

Because “everyone” benefits from patriarchy!

[Thanks, Glass Cleaner]


Skip to comment form

  1. Kate Smith

    You are stronger than I am – I couldn’t get to the second paragraph of that hateful shit.

    Lovely snake, though – thanks for the photo.

  2. Lemur

    Breathtaking in its fabulous fuckupedry. If they wouldn’t get soggy, I would send you compensation tacos in the mail.

  3. Orange

    The only thing creepier than a snake dropping out of a tree is a snake lurking unseen in the water. That, and giant specimens of the millipede or centipede variety. I had to avert my eyes from the big ‘pedes at the Insectarium in New Orleans (which should properly be called the Arthropodatarium).

    I hope such fuckupedry remains in Internet archives so that someday, the wingnut’s grandchildren can look on it in horror at its sheer jurassicness.

    It must be hard work to be a wingnut homophobe these days. Time was, they could just say “it’s wrong in God’s eyes” and nobody would say boo. And now? They contort themselves in embarrassing ways trying to conjure up an acceptable story for why gays and lesbians aren’t to be deemed fully human. It’s not working.

  4. Ron Sullivan

    Pretty snake!

  5. Rachel S.

    …right the same way women inflict themselves on men, and racial and ethnic minorities inflict themselves on god-fearin’ whyat peepol.

    Those damned homos. When will they learn?!

  6. Pantsuit Sally

    I had to stop reading at this:

    “marriage as the best way to establish an enduring relationship between adults to best protect the interests of children and, to some degree, women.”

    Marriage has not traditionally protected women’s rights. Over the years, it has been necessary to enact various laws specifically to protect the rights and interests of married women; they didn’t get those protections from the marriage itself.

    Only an undeservedly privileged asshat could argue that an institution necessitating the enactment of particular rape laws actually protects women. Dudebro also seems oblivious to the fact that in some parts of the world, the primary HIV risk for women is marriage. Oh, how I could go on…

  7. Citizen Jane

    Isn’t this meant to be ironic? It’s actually called “Ask a wingnut.” Surely it’s some kind of parody.

    On a sidenote, the way Christian conservatives commonly talk about “training” their children makes me shiver each time I hear it. Can they at least pretend they don’t see their kids as dogs?

  8. Esme

    Why are so many people convinced that being something (gay, female, a person of color, disabled, fat, what have you) is some kind of act directed at them? I can’t just wander around gaying at people on the street. I don’t go gay-marrying at politicians. I’ve never gayed a Mormon.

    Why do they feel the need to heterosexual me?

  9. Pantsuit Sally

    I’m with you, Citizen Jane. It’s not a freaking circus. Well, it’s not supposed to be, anyway.

    I just love how he starts by saying his opposition to gay marriage has nothing to do with bigotry, and needs 500 words to explain his position and it turns out that it is, in fact, bigotry.

  10. hero

    Love LOVE love the snake.

    Asshat Mitt Romney (he used to be semi-sane; what happened? Oh, that’s right) assures that the antis are all about protecting the children.
    what are the stats for children abused/killed by members of their own household? 90-something percent victimized by heteromales, amiright? That line about marriage as protection for children and women–ouch. Foxes protecting the henhouse, anyone? (Well, see, that’s the POINT: you gotta have TRAINED foxes, then it works; oh, and you TRAIN the foxes by putting them in CHARGE of the henhouse, see?)

    Oh the perversity of those so blind they will not see.

  11. Antoinette Niebieszczanski

    I’d rather be take a crap in Macy’s window during rush hour than be married, but there is no good reason why everyone should not have access to its legal rights and privileges.

    I try not to read Salon because doing so messes with my digestion.

  12. norbizness

    It’s almost as if Salon intentionally picked him to make his demographic look stupid, like the way Steven Seagal picks 110-pound chumps to aikido into next week before getting to the big boss for the final fight.

    Except that there is no big boss in this fight, just acres of dumbshits.

  13. CLD

    The entire article is a skid mark left by a turd.

  14. magriff

    The last time I clicked through Salon out of boredom I ran across a delightful article entitled “Americans Talk about Love”, in which some old pervert gleefully recounted his many years of conquests, and talked about how “squeezing tits” is good for his arthritis. Eek. No more Salon for me, ever.

  15. Pantsuit Sally

    That is just ridiculous, magriff. I propose that from now on we replace the term “navelgazing” with “wienergazing”, since it appears that men can always find some profound, life-affirming, renewing-faith-in-humanity message in their boners.

  16. wolfhound

    What really chaps this wolfhound’s hide (to pilfer a phrase) is the assumption that ensuring equal protection under the law somehow FORCES these wingnuts to “accept” homosexuals. No, scooter, I think the objective is to end institutionalized bigotry. No-one is actually stupid enough to think that these neanderthals will become enlightened (by our standards). It’s amazing to me how folks like this dude can uphold their own bigotry and privilege by claiming that granting equal rights, or even acknowledging the humanity of “the other” is oppressive to them.

  17. Jezebella

    Citizen Jane, I recently spied a “christian” t-shirt that said “They see children, we see an army.” The husband of the wearer of said t-shirt, explained that he believed his children were soldiers for christ. [I had asked her, but he helpfully answered for her. Apparently she’s unable to speak for herself regarding her own apparel.] My immediate response was “That’s creepy!”. I continue to be horrified by the fact that when I see children, they see soldiers. The point of marriage, clearly, being to breed more soldiers. For Christ. Who was, as I recall, a pacifist. Huh.

  18. Derek

    “Ordinarily, Mr. Wingnut, we’d treat a cancer like yours with radiation and chemotherapy. Unfortunately, these techniques are very recent innovations. Over two millennia before they were discovered, ‘society concluded’ that the best way to cure disease was to frighten away the evil spirits that cause it, so that’s what we’re going to try with you. I don’t suppose you could lay your hands on a nice big tree snake, could you? About two or three feet long?”

  19. Derek

    I kan haz eksplanashun? I thought the cornerstone of the conservative view was the notion that people should be free to do what they want with minimal government interference. Yet, right on the pages of Salon, in front of Gawd and everybody, Mr. Wingnut professes to believe that “society” (which is who, exactly? 50% of the votes plus one?) gets to decide which pursuits of what kinds of happiness are to be permitted, for the good of the collective. That smacks of socialism to me. Or perhaps fascism. I forget which one is bad and which one is good. Or are they both bad? I’d better start reading Salon more often.

  20. BadKitty

    Reading the comments under the Ask a Wingnut article did warm my heart, though. I read 4 pages of them without encountering one single ugly ignorant comment. There may be some if you read past the 4th page but I got bored at that point and wandered off.

  21. Pantsuit Sally

    For cripes sake:

    “There is precedent for this, as in the way Henry VIII threatened the churches in England after his divorce from Catherine of Aragon.”

    Did this guy really just use an example from times when there were few to no boundaries between church and state to support his position? Does he not realize that the wall separating the legal from the religious that he and others of his ilk are always trying to tear down is exactly what would prevent the government from forcing churches to perform and recognize same-sex marriages?

  22. Comrade PhysioProf

    Salon is nothing more than Parade magazine without Marilyn Vos Savant for motherfucking “liberals”. (Greenwald doesn’t suck.)

    Do those snakes try to kill your ass after they drop down on you?

  23. Sutton

    I hope such fuckupedry remains in Internet archives so that someday, the wingnut’s grandchildren can look on it in horror at its sheer jurassicness.

    Those things do tend to hang around, one way or another. I still remember the shock of finding my grandfather’s Klan robes in the attic.

  24. Jonathan


    marriage as the best way to establish an enduring relationship between adults to best protect the interests of children and, to some degree, women.

    “To some degree”?

    I’m amazed that the wingnut couldn’t pass the entire lie without choking on it.

  25. kaje

    We get rough greens in Missouri too. I love love LOVE them, they’re right up their with blue racers in my book. They’re the best for alleviating snake-o-phobia; most people I show them too are all like “Ooh! How pretty!”. And they never, ever bite you.

    More snakes plz.

  26. birkwearingblamer

    Fabulous snake!

  27. larkspur

    Huh, rough green snakes. I think I love ’em. ComradePhysioProf, it appears that they will only kill your ass if your ass is insect-y, spidery, or of some other invertebrate-y ass-type. Hmmm. Spineless creatures can be found among godbags, MRAs, and assorted wingnuts. Now you see why Ritz Mock Apple Pie was invented: if you pick apples, you have to go outside, and outside is the venue from which rough green snakes may hurl themselves at your ass. They will not bite you or eat you, but oh lord don’t they chortle amongst themselves when you drop down dead of fright. Also, rough green snakes are not oblivious to the whole snake-apple thing. Rock on, RGSs.

  28. another voice

    Antoinette N. made me spit my not-too-expensive chardonnay at my computer, and Jonathan rightly notes that wingnut asshat whoever could not even bring himself to pretend that marriage is good for women. The snake is lovely, but if it dropped on my head, I’d probably need a sedative or perhaps just more chardonnay.

  29. terristrange

    Really Derek,
    social/political/economical conservatives could give a fuck about the good of any human collective, whether they identify with it or not.
    Fascists, yes. Socialists, hardly.

  30. admirerofemily

    Drop snakes!

    That would be much scarier than their Australian cousins (or something) the Drop Bears methinks.

    Though that 10 kilos of furry hide is said to pack quite a punch if you are unfortunate enough to be under it at the time.

  31. Jenn

    Well, this homosexual would really enjoy it if the heterosexual masses stopped “inflicting” themselves all over me. I mean, every time I see a straight couple kissing it just churns the stomach. Not because I have anything against straight people, but because the knowledge that freely kissing a female partner in the same setting would be like putting on a side show without charging admission.

    Seriously, straight people: if you’re going to invite yourself to my private life, at least let me sell tickets. That way I can pay off my law school debt with your bizarre masochistic habit of rubber necking things you find distasteful.

  32. VinaigretteGirl

    John Milton (9 December 1608 – 8 November 1674), a Christian civil servant as well as poet, was a key author at the heart of the doctrine of separation of church and state. He argued that Christians were absolutely called to render unto Caesar that which was Caesar’s and had a duty to choose: if their private conscience called them to refrain from undertaking tasks required by the state then either they told their consciences to shut up, or else they quit the job requiring said tasks.

    But Wingnut’s entire essay is a tissue of lies and ignorance from start to finish, so it’s not surprising that he’s unfamiliar with ideas which have had currency for 350 years written by a somewhat well-known Christian author.

  33. tinfoil hattie

    This is all they’ve got, isn’t it. “Those damn gays ruining traditional marriage.”

    I recall an Onion(?) article from years back wherein the writer said something like, “I’m tired of all these homosexual men coming up to me in bars and sucking my cock. This has got to stop.” That’s what this is really about, isn’t it? That somewhere deep in their fantasies, these men imagine other men performing sexual acts on them. WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF I LIKED IT? ZOMG WE’D BETTER KILL ALL THE HOMOS THEN. Except lesbians, because they will have hawt sex in front of us. So we can wank off!

    Also: wiener-gazing. Absolutely. Brilliant suggestion.

  34. Barn Owl

    For a (very) brief period I thought that Salon might be worth reading, but then I realized it’s just another place for liberal dudes to assuage their privilege-guilt by feigning outrage and writing dozens of Letters to the Editor. Meanwhile, someone has to take up the slack, while the privileged dudes are, well, slacking, probably when they’re meant to be working.

    Sometimes I think that the liberal blogosphere is merely a huge cyber-lek, complete with testosterone-addled male prairie chickens strutting and whirring and thumping. IBTP.

  35. Silence

    Gay marriage would spoil religion? Whoo-hoo!!!! Allow me to extend a large thanks to my homosexual siblings for such a service.

    And gorgeous snake, Twisty. Almost makes up for all the scorpions and centipedes you got down your way.

  36. humanbein

    I’ve got to say once again: If men didn’t regard sex as rape, seduction and coercion, and regard the response to this as arousal on the part of women, they wouldn’t fear a world of gay men unleashed on them so very much.

    Without a conscious thought in their heads, they still know that what they think of sex – men raping women and making them love it against their will – will become gays raping men and making them love it against their will.

    The core of male resistance to gay sex is the fervent and self-justifying belief that women love to be raped and degraded and that a man could easily be forced to love it, too.

  37. Sascha

    To Citizen Jane:

    What’s wrong with comparing children to dogs? It’s actually a compliment to the children.

  38. larkspur

    Jenn, a few days after Prop 8 passed, I was going to my local library, which is on a pretty street in the heart of this small town, directly across from a Catholic church.

    Now, the subject of marriage in any context is mostly a big blah to me (although naturally I am in favor of anyone who wants to participate to, um, participate, and mazel tov). But prior to Prop 8, I’d always thought it was fun to see a wedding party emerging from the church on a Saturday afternoon. Sometimes I’d plop myself down on the library steps just to watch.

    So I was surprised at the rush of sadness and pain I felt the second I saw that day’s wedding party. I mean, I knew from the get-go that the pain had nothing to do with wishing these folks ill. But for folks who want to get married, my state had just said, “No, no, you don’t get your happy day. Well, okay, you can make something up in your yard or whatever, but because we won’t separate civil marriage from religious marriage, you are forbidden to make those church steps all gross and horrible with your gay happiness. Happiness is a finite quantity, and you gay folks can’t poach ours, ’cause then there won’t be enough left or something. Ewww, We hate you all, we hate ourselves, please stop making us think about stuff.”

    Yeah, I was sad. Who could possibly be against more and more happy celebrations? Not caterers or planners or resort owners or party rental places or, oh yeah, people in love.

    I don’t mean to preach, and y’all shouldn’t have to be my choir. But Prop 8: I am so not over it.

    PS: This fear of being hit on by gays? Jeebus frikkin Christ. They imagine a nightmare in which they are not allowed to say “Oh, thanks but no thanks” because they don’t believe any woman should really truly have the agency to say “Thanks but no thanks” to them. This really shakes the patriarchy to its core, doesn’t it. Dominion over all the creatures of the earth, blah blah blah, women being among those creatures. I am shutting up now.

  39. Jezebella

    That dudes are afraid of being hit on by *other men*, should, in a logical world, tell them a little bit about what it’s like to be a woman, and how unpleasant it is to have horndoggy dudes trying to get in your pants all the goddamn time. But noooo. The empathy gene is apparently NOT transmitted to the male of the human species (with the exception of all of y’all’s Nigels of course). I think deep down they must realize how unpleasant it is to be on the receiving end of the male mating ritual, but to acknowledge it would be such a boner-killer they have to keep that knowledge repressed.

  40. swanage

    Jezebella: “The empathy gene is apparently NOT transmitted to the male of the human species”

    I’d argue that all humans are born with an empathy gene, it’s just that younguns are then subject to different indoctrination that either suppresses the tendency (boys) or encourages the tendency (girls.) A huge generalisation I know but as someone who has tried to raise a son to be empathetic all I can say is it’s exhausting to continually oppose the idea that boys are inherently not empathetic. They can be, we just have to stop ‘beating’ it out of them. IBTP.

  41. Jezebella

    I did note an exception for blamers’ Nigels. I did, however, forget to mention your Nigelitos. Mea culpa.

  42. slythwolf

    Lookit the snakey! *burbles*

  43. Glass Cleaner

    Woo! The godbags are giving up ground! He concedes that marriage practically manifests itself as a mechanism to protect property rights, while ideally it should be a relationship between two people in love.

    Cause for celebration! All we have to do now is to show him that gays are starry-eyed too!

    (Since gayness is not a genetic trait, while starry-eyedness undoubtedly is, this should not prove to be difficult.)

  44. Rozasharn

    “I’ve got to say once again: If men didn’t regard sex as rape, seduction and coercion, and regard the response to this as arousal on the part of women, they wouldn’t fear a world of gay men unleashed on them so very much.” —Humanbein.

    Very good point.

Comments have been disabled.