Wednesday, March 18, 2009

Run, Walrus, Run!

gay, marriage, traditional, prop 8, stupid,
Apparently, I hurt someone's feelings. Since that someone is a judgey homophobe, I'm not feeling bad about it.

I repeat, gays that are currently married in California married at a time that that same sex marriage was legal. Therefore, any comparison of their marriages to counterfeit anything is invalid.

Nice try.

Try again, and try harder this time, okay?

Jackass.

17 comments:

  1. His "elaboration" is another epic fail.

    His simplistic reasoning as to how a university degree is a like a marriage license is that there are requirements for a diploma just like there are requirements for a marriage license. While he mentions the requirements for a marriage license ("one bride," "one groom," etc.), he conveniently fails to mention the requirements for a college degree. That's because he knows that the legal requirements for obtaining a marriage license are inherent CHARACTERISTICS, one doesn't "earn" one's male-ness or female-ness that entitles him/her to a marriage license with his/her partner. Whereas the requirements for obtaining a diploma are college credits that require EFFORT and school work.

    Yet, Walrus insists that gay people are like slackers who want a diploma without studying. In reality, same-sex couples are like students who audit courses, put in all the work, and get none of the credit, and don't get a diploma because they aren't allowed to officially attend college.

    So, sorry Walrus and friends. Epic, idiotic, bigoted fail.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Loved your latest post, btw.

    What Walrus is so carefully avoiding is the fact that in the straight world, marriage isn't all that special. Everyone gets married, half of us get divorced. Any two straight idiots can get married. It's harder to get a driver's license. If you're straight and don't know someone on their second, third or fourth marriage, you're living on a compound waiting for the prophet to tell you what to do next.

    Why we can't allow gays to share in the glory of all this is absolutely beyond me.

    ReplyDelete
  3. One of the morons over there followed me back to my blog. I think I'm pretty roundly trouncing him at the moment

    ReplyDelete
  4. why won't they follow me back to my blog?! i never get to have any fun!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Apparently my views of the afterlife weren't good enough for him. Its kinda sad really.

    ReplyDelete
  6. hey, i jumped into the fray. fritz is a little better at teh lojiks than walrus, but not by much.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I threw some epistles at him. I'm expecting he won't have a good counter.

    ReplyDelete
  8. which is frightening because he is a lawyer! although other lawyers see probate lawyers as the gamma wolf of the lawyer world.

    any afterlife is inherently unfair, except the view that you are made to understand every bad thing you have ever done, are forgiven, and live happily ever after.

    which is silly, but i suppose one can hope. (i do want an afterlife, i've just seen no proof of it. but i would like to play with my dog for all eternity. he's 10, and clearly getting towards the end, and that really makes me want to believe in an afterlife. yeah, i know, my dog.)

    ReplyDelete
  9. I think I'm about to say fuck off to all those idiots. They can't make a real argument, and its mind-numbing reading them try and say a legal marriage is somehow "counterfeit."

    ReplyDelete
  10. Assertion, assertion, ad hom, assertion, false analogy, assertion, assertion, assertion, red herring, assertion, appeal to authority, assertion, assertion, ASSERTION!

    that's how opiners argue.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Ray Comfort makes more sense than them.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Which is the scariest sentence ever written. I mean if Ray Comfort developes schizophrenia and starts spouting word salad, we'll never notice the difference!

    ReplyDelete
  13. I would not be surprised to see them cite Paul Cameron.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Somebody else did, obliquely. I just spanked him. Enjoy!

    ReplyDelete
  15. I admire you for trying over there EC. I don't engage with those unfortunate folks anymore. It always has been and likely always will be an utter waste of time. They're condescending, bigoted, illogical, and worst of all, boring. I think they have too much time on their hands to sit around and obsess about "SSM" and "neutered marriage" as much as they do.

    ReplyDelete
  16. (1) "Nuetered" makes me think of my dog and his entirely lack of scrotum/testicles, so combining this with marriage makes me think of a barbie and a ken doll trying to do it.

    (2) Fitz just quote mined a court case that went in favor of SSM to prove that SSM shouldn't happen. Can you imagine trying that in front of a Judge?

    I'm totally calling him on it.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Thanks Fannie. I could argue with apologists all day, but these guys...

    Fitz actually accused me of being dogmatic.

    ReplyDelete

Comments are for you guys, not for me. Say what you will. Don't feel compelled to stay on topic, I enjoy it when comments enter Tangentville or veer off into Non Sequitur Town. Just keep it polite, okay?

I am attempting to use blogger's new comment spam feature. If you don't immediately see your comment, it is being held in spam, I will get it out next time I check the filter. Unless you are Dennis Markuze, in which case you're never seeing your comment.

Creative Commons License
Forever in Hell by Personal Failure is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
Based on a work at foreverinhell.blogspot.com.