Indiana’s new law and why I hate the phrase ‘PC’

Indiana Governor Mike Pence has faced heavy and well-deserved criticism for signing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (you can read the full text of the law here). Critics of the law maintain that it opens the door for legalized discrimination against LGBT people. Supporters of the argument claim that the law is not a license to discriminate against LGBT people (the conservatives who advocated for the bill’s passage say otherwise). According to them, Indiana’s RFRA is meant to protect the right of business owners to operate their business according to their religious beliefs and without undue interference by the federal government. They also criticize opponents of the law for ignoring the federal government’s 1993 RFRA as well as the religious freedom laws passed in 19 other states. Contrary to the protestations of right-wing pundits (as well as mainstream media outlets), the law is substantially different from the federal government’s 1993 RFRA. In addition, the language contained in the Indiana law differs from the RFRA’s enacted by other states across the country. Bottom line: Indiana’s RFRA is unique and offers bigoted business owners the legal cudgel they need to discriminate against those they don’t like (outrage over the law has focused largely on how it could impact LGBT citizens of the state, but the law could potentially be used to discriminate against women, African-Americans, and non-Christians).

Shortly after the bill was signed into law, it, Governor Pence, and the state of Indiana all came under heavy fire (here is a list of the entities-celebrities, corporations, sports organizations, colleges & universities, and more-who have criticized the new law). On Tuesday, Brett Jewkes, Senior Vice-President and Chief Communications Officer for NASCAR (the second most popular sport in USAmerica) released a statement denouncing the discriminatory law:

“NASCAR is disappointed by the recent legislation passed in Indiana. We will not embrace nor participate in exclusion or intolerance. We are committed to diversity and inclusion within our sport and therefore will continue to welcome all competitors and fans at our events in the state of Indiana and anywhere else we race.” — NASCAR Senior Vice President and Chief Communications Officer Brett Jewkes

Of course no good deed (or statement, in this case) goes unpunished. Some NASCAR fans took to Twitter to let NASCAR know they weren’t happy:

https://twitter.com/elJimBo70/status/583346033024995328

Those last two Tweets struck a nerve with me. A big nerve. Like Grand Canyon size. So I did what any angry, self-respecting, SJW would do: I wrote a bunch of words. The following is a comment I left at Addicting Info:

I really, Really, REALLY want to take the phrase ‘politically correct’ out back and chop its head off, stake it through the heart, and burn the ashes. I’m so sick of hearing that phrase invoked.

Don’t like that a company supports equal rights for all? Accuse them of being PC.

Don’t like people requesting that you moderate your language (which is not censorship) and stop using bigoted or gendered slurs bc they punch down on marginalized people and contribute to a climate of discrimination and oppression? Accuse them of being PC.

Don’t like the idea of students requesting that professors add trigger warnings to certain topics so that those students won’t be caught off-guard when sensitive material is discussed? Accuse them of being PC (and curiously, I’ve yet to see PC complaints lobbed at the Motion Picture Film Industry and the ratings they use to inform viewers of the type of material present in a movie).

‘PC’ has become a blanket term for “stuff I don’t like or disagree with”. Moreover, it has become a term that many feel is an argument unto itself. Rather than engage with the substance of a particular topic, a great many of the people who lob the ‘PC’ bomb invariably lob it and walk away. Just look at the pissants in the OP whining about NASCAR being “politically correct”. Do they even understand the very phrase they’re using? Do they know that generally speaking, PC means:

“[…] an attitude or policy of being careful not to offend or upset any group of people in society who are believed to have a disadvantage.”
(from wiki)

With that definition in mind…I’d like to ask these socially regressive numpties: why it is so bad to be PC?
What is so horrible about someone advocating that people not refer to women as sluts?
What is so awful about someone requesting that others not refer to lesbians as ‘dykes’?
Why is it such a bad thing that companies like Starbucks, Nike, and NASCAR publicly declare their opposition to discrimination?
Being careful so as not to offend people that are crapped upon by society (to different degrees) or requesting that others employ greater care with their words and deeds–this is something that’s bad?

The fools in the above Tweets are whining about NASCAR taking the position that discrimination against LGBT people is not ok. By [poorly] arguing that NASCAR should “stay out of this”, they’re sending the message that they (and other companies) should not comment on human rights violations. Thankfully, more and more companies are recognizing that diversity initiatives and a welcoming, inclusive work environment are important keys to the success of a company. And part of that is making it known that you are an inclusive company that opposes discrimination.

Gee, that’s such an awful thing.

::rolls eyes::

Writing that was a bit cathartic. I’m still annoyed/angry/frustrated of course, but I needed to get that off my chest. Now if you’ll excuse me, I think Mr. Pointy and I have some slaying to do.

Indiana’s new law and why I hate the phrase ‘PC’
{advertisement}

How to fix the United States

Child abuse.

Rape Culture.

Unemployment.

Homelessness.

Climate change.

Corrupt politicians.

Income inequality.

Domestic terrorists.

Domestic violence.

The War on Drugs.

Childhood obesity.

The War on Women.

The War on the Poor.

Crumbling infrastructure.

The growing police state.

The War on the Homeless.

Skyrocketing student debt.

Rampant institutional racism.

A broken two-party system.

Staggering amounts of gun violence.

The erosion of the wall between church and state.

The ongoing denial of the civil and human rights of LGBT citizens.

These are just some of social, political, and economic issues facing the United States. These problems negatively affect the lives of millions of USAmericans on a daily basis (and they reverberate around the world). Put aside those issues for now, as the country faces a far more dire threat than childhood obesity, unemployment, transphobia, or a racially biased criminal justice system.  Arizona state Senator Sylvia Allen (R) has identified this problem and offers a solution:

Each year a few bills get proposed at the state Capitol that have people shaking their heads.

This year: Mandatory church attendance.

An Arizona state senator thinks it is a good idea for the American people.

State Sen. Sylvia Allen, R-Snowflake, brought it up during a committee meeting Tuesday while lawmakers were debating a gun bill, not religion.

Allen explained that without a “moral rebirth” in the country, more people may feel the need to carry a weapon.

“I believe what’s happening to our country is that there’s a moral erosion of the soul of America,” she said.

Mandatory church attendance.

Such a simple, elegant fix for the moral erosion of the country’s soul. While Sen. Allen’s solution is blatantly unconstitutional and would be all but impossible to enforce even if it became law, let’s not focus on that. Let’s also not focus on the question of whether or not souls exist and if they do, how a country can have one. Let’s not even worry about identifying the specific problems caused by the moral erosion of the country. What’s important is that her solution would set things right in this country and reverse the moral breakdown afflicting the nation. The United States would experience a moral rebirth and everything will be wonderful and glorious and super and awesome again. Just like it was in the glory days of the 1950s:

The original comment occurred during a vote on legislation to allow individuals who have permits to carry concealed weapons to bring them into public buildings. Allen said she did not understand the opposition and talked about moral breakdown.

“Probably we should be debating a bill requiring every American to attend a church of their choice on Sunday to see if we can get back to having a moral rebirth,” adding “that would never be allowed.”

On Wednesday, Allen said that was a “flippant comment” but decried the changes since she was a child in the 1950s.

“People prayed, people went to church,” she said in explaining her views.

“I remember on Sundays the stores were closed,” Allen said. “The biggest thing is religion was kicked out of our public places, out of our schools.”

Ah yes, the wonderful 50s. When people prayed and went to church. When the KKK still roamed the country lynching African-Americans. When LGBT people dared not leave the closet. When women were denied their reproductive rights. When fearmongering McCarthyism gripped the country. Yeah, that was a real swell time-for cisgender, heterosexual, christian, white men.

The irony of a woman longing for the US to be more like it was in the 1950s is not lost on me.

How to fix the United States

I'm a man who gets offended

“‘That’s offensive!’ … said no great man, ever.”

“Never is the fall of masculinity more clearly on display than when grown, adult men pull out the ‘offended’ card.  Any man who goes about with the word ‘offensive’ on his lips should be boiled with his own pudding… or promptly have his man-card revoked, one of the two.

Why is it that we all inherently get that sense of disgust, that feeling of embarrassment for a man who wines about being ‘offended’ but not many of us can articulate as to the reason?  Just why are we so repulsed by men (usually liberal) who fervently take ‘offense’?”

“Today’s ‘offended’ men are seen as wimpy simply because they are.  Instead of harnessing whatever affront is facing them, instead of facing it head-on, dealing with the problem and coming out the other side a stronger man, the ‘modern’ male chooses to sulk, to whine, and inevitably call Gloria Steinem.”

The above gems are brought to you by one Steven Crowder.  Crowder is a blogger over at Louder With Crowder, a Tea Party News Network powered conservative website that I’m not going to link to (here’s a link to the Addicting Info article that brought Crowder to my attention. It has a link to his site). While reading his sexist tirade, I realized that he made no attempt to identify what things so-called “modern” men take offense to. Others can fisk his rant, but as one of those “modern” men he attacks, I thought I’d list some of the things I take offense to. The following is a comment I left over at Addicting Info:

Stop being offended.
That’s far easier said than done however. Many of us who are members of certain oppressed groups regularly get offended by crap that others say or do. And contrary to the rantings of the douchemaggott in the OP, there is absolutely nothing wrong with being offended.

As a gay man, I get offended that people like Pat Robertson or Scott Lively deny not just my humanity and my rights, but the rights of countless LGBT people around the world. Their incendiary rhetoric contributes to the climate of anti-LGBT bigotry.

As a black man, I get offended by the people who claim that racism is a thing of the past because it isn’t and to make that claim is to deny the experiences of people of color. It sends the message that what these people go through either isn’t real or doesn’t matter. For those of us who are affected by the very much existing racism, we don’t have the luxury of living in a fantasy world disconnected from reality. Many of us don’t appreciate being told that the crap we’ve gone through isn’t real.

As an atheist, I get offended by those who claim that atheists are as bad as rapists bc we don’t believe in any deities. It’s offensive on multiple levels. For one, not believing in a deity is nothing like violating the bodily autonomy of another person by forcing yourself on them. Rape is one of the most horrific violations of another human being possible. Not believing in a deity doesn’t affect anyone else. The two aren’t remotely comparable. Secondly, being an atheist doesn’t make one immoral (yes, there are atheists with questionable morals, just as there are theists with questionable morals). Morals deal with the distinction between good/bad or right/wrong behavior between human beings. There’s nothing immoral about being an atheist bc there’s no moral component to not believing in a deity. It’s as silly as saying someone is immoral bc they don’t believe in invisible teapots or rainbow farting unicorns. By itself the ‘atheists are immoral monsters no better than rapists’ meme might not be so bad IF it wasn’t part of a broader pattern of denigrating and discriminating against people who don’t worship a deity.

Adding to all that, while I’m not a woman I get offended when people make sexist or misogynistic comments or when lawmakers submit legislation to curtail women’s reproductive rights. I also get offended when people who don’t know a damn thing about gender dysphoria pontificate about human biology as if they know what they’re talking about. I’m neither a woman nor a trans person, but I get offended bc both groups are human beings who continue to see their rights trampled upon and I don’t like that one bit. I’d prefer to live in a world where people are respected rather than denigrated for being who they are. I’d prefer to live in a world where the diversity of the human experience is appreciated and lauded rather than lambasted.

Unfortunately, I (along with you and everyone else) do not live in such a world. We live in a world where marginalized and oppressed people like women, trans people, lesbians, gay people, bisexual people, atheists, black people, and so many other groups are routinely crapped on. To varying degrees, around the world, these groups are subjected to discrimination, verbal and sexual harassment, bullying, threats of and actual violence, sexual assault and rape, and of course murder. Such denial of the human rights of others OUGHT to cause offense. It OUGHT to anger people. It OUGHT to cause people to rise up and say “No More”.

And that’s what often happens after people get offended. They do something about it. Offense often leads to outrage which often leads to efforts to effect social, political, and economic change for the better.

So here’s the middle finger to Crowder. I’m glad that many men get offended.

If Crowder wants to adhere to rigid (and harmful) gender roles that dictate what men (and women) can or cannot do, fine. But he doesn’t get to shove anyone else in that box. Taking offense at things doesn’t make me less of a man, and fuck Crowder or anyone else who says otherwise.

In a supremely amusing bit of irony that just hit me, Crowder’s entire rant reads like he is offended by men who get offended. Of course he’s too much of a misogynistic, bigoted douchebag for that level of self-awareness.

I'm a man who gets offended

I’m a man who gets offended

“‘That’s offensive!’ … said no great man, ever.”

“Never is the fall of masculinity more clearly on display than when grown, adult men pull out the ‘offended’ card.  Any man who goes about with the word ‘offensive’ on his lips should be boiled with his own pudding… or promptly have his man-card revoked, one of the two.

Why is it that we all inherently get that sense of disgust, that feeling of embarrassment for a man who wines about being ‘offended’ but not many of us can articulate as to the reason?  Just why are we so repulsed by men (usually liberal) who fervently take ‘offense’?”

“Today’s ‘offended’ men are seen as wimpy simply because they are.  Instead of harnessing whatever affront is facing them, instead of facing it head-on, dealing with the problem and coming out the other side a stronger man, the ‘modern’ male chooses to sulk, to whine, and inevitably call Gloria Steinem.”

The above gems are brought to you by one Steven Crowder.  Crowder is a blogger over at Louder With Crowder, a Tea Party News Network powered conservative website that I’m not going to link to (here’s a link to the Addicting Info article that brought Crowder to my attention. It has a link to his site). While reading his sexist tirade, I realized that he made no attempt to identify what things so-called “modern” men take offense to. Others can fisk his rant, but as one of those “modern” men he attacks, I thought I’d list some of the things I take offense to. The following is a comment I left over at Addicting Info:

Stop being offended.
That’s far easier said than done however. Many of us who are members of certain oppressed groups regularly get offended by crap that others say or do. And contrary to the rantings of the douchemaggott in the OP, there is absolutely nothing wrong with being offended.

As a gay man, I get offended that people like Pat Robertson or Scott Lively deny not just my humanity and my rights, but the rights of countless LGBT people around the world. Their incendiary rhetoric contributes to the climate of anti-LGBT bigotry.

As a black man, I get offended by the people who claim that racism is a thing of the past because it isn’t and to make that claim is to deny the experiences of people of color. It sends the message that what these people go through either isn’t real or doesn’t matter. For those of us who are affected by the very much existing racism, we don’t have the luxury of living in a fantasy world disconnected from reality. Many of us don’t appreciate being told that the crap we’ve gone through isn’t real.

As an atheist, I get offended by those who claim that atheists are as bad as rapists bc we don’t believe in any deities. It’s offensive on multiple levels. For one, not believing in a deity is nothing like violating the bodily autonomy of another person by forcing yourself on them. Rape is one of the most horrific violations of another human being possible. Not believing in a deity doesn’t affect anyone else. The two aren’t remotely comparable. Secondly, being an atheist doesn’t make one immoral (yes, there are atheists with questionable morals, just as there are theists with questionable morals). Morals deal with the distinction between good/bad or right/wrong behavior between human beings. There’s nothing immoral about being an atheist bc there’s no moral component to not believing in a deity. It’s as silly as saying someone is immoral bc they don’t believe in invisible teapots or rainbow farting unicorns. By itself the ‘atheists are immoral monsters no better than rapists’ meme might not be so bad IF it wasn’t part of a broader pattern of denigrating and discriminating against people who don’t worship a deity.

Adding to all that, while I’m not a woman I get offended when people make sexist or misogynistic comments or when lawmakers submit legislation to curtail women’s reproductive rights. I also get offended when people who don’t know a damn thing about gender dysphoria pontificate about human biology as if they know what they’re talking about. I’m neither a woman nor a trans person, but I get offended bc both groups are human beings who continue to see their rights trampled upon and I don’t like that one bit. I’d prefer to live in a world where people are respected rather than denigrated for being who they are. I’d prefer to live in a world where the diversity of the human experience is appreciated and lauded rather than lambasted.

Unfortunately, I (along with you and everyone else) do not live in such a world. We live in a world where marginalized and oppressed people like women, trans people, lesbians, gay people, bisexual people, atheists, black people, and so many other groups are routinely crapped on. To varying degrees, around the world, these groups are subjected to discrimination, verbal and sexual harassment, bullying, threats of and actual violence, sexual assault and rape, and of course murder. Such denial of the human rights of others OUGHT to cause offense. It OUGHT to anger people. It OUGHT to cause people to rise up and say “No More”.

And that’s what often happens after people get offended. They do something about it. Offense often leads to outrage which often leads to efforts to effect social, political, and economic change for the better.

So here’s the middle finger to Crowder. I’m glad that many men get offended.

If Crowder wants to adhere to rigid (and harmful) gender roles that dictate what men (and women) can or cannot do, fine. But he doesn’t get to shove anyone else in that box. Taking offense at things doesn’t make me less of a man, and fuck Crowder or anyone else who says otherwise.

In a supremely amusing bit of irony that just hit me, Crowder’s entire rant reads like he is offended by men who get offended. Of course he’s too much of a misogynistic, bigoted douchebag for that level of self-awareness.

I’m a man who gets offended

Where is your personal responsibility Ben Carson?

One of the many empty phrases thrown out by USAmerican Right-Wing Authoritarians (RWAs) is “personal responsibility”. The phrase is often used by RWAs, white supremacists, and status quo supporters when talking about low-income women becoming pregnant or crime statistics in the African-American community (I’ve come to despise the phrase as its proponents fail to acknowledge the existence of many factors outside the control of Black USAmericans; additionally, I’ve yet to see the phrase levied against anyone who is not Black) . One would think that RWAs would be big on being personally responsible, no? That’s not the case, as one prominent RWA recently demonstrated. In an interview with CNN, GOP darling Ben Carson said:

“Because a lot of people who go into prison go into prison straight — and when they come out, they’re gay,” Carson said. “So, did something happen while they were in there? Ask yourself that question.”

This deeply offensive and completely unevidenced comment brought to you by retired neurosurgeon, RWA, and all-round bigot Ben Carson.

I don’t know if he really thinks prison rape causes heterosexual men to become gay, but that’s what his comment implies. He didn’t give much thought to what he was saying, nor does it appear he gave much consideration to the questions that necessarily arise from his assertion. Before attempting to address these questions, one must ask “is there any reason to believe that Ben Carson’s statements are true?” When an individual makes an assertion, the onus is on them to provide adequate supporting evidence (see burden of proof). Given that he supplied no citation to a reputable source in support of his comments, it’s safe to dismiss them. Now you’d think that someone who belongs to the party of “personal responsibility” would, when faced with criticism over their bigoted comments, take responsibility, right? If you’re Ben Carson you just take to CNN:

Ben Carson was on with Sean Hannity this afternoon and was asked about his interview with CNN this morning. Carson responded by reiterating his support for traditional marriage between a man and woman, adding that he believes our Constitution protects everyone, regardless of their beliefs, and that includes people who are gay. He says that he has no problem with people who are gay doing whatever they want, but he’s not willing to redefine marriage for them.

With regard to the CNN interview itself, Carson says they pre-recorded a 25 minute interview and that all they are playing is that one tidbit about gay rights. Because of that, Carson says he’s decided he’s not going to talk about ‘gay rights’ anymore, noting that every time he has momentum, the liberal press wants to talk about it. He said he’s just not going to fall for that again.

“Waaaah! I won’t talk about ‘gay rights’ any longer because people criticize me for what I say and it’s totally not fair and I’m going to throw a temper tantrum!”

What happened to being responsible? Carson made bigoted, unevidenced assertions and was called out. Cue the world’s smallest violins.

Republicans really hate being held accountable for the things they say. In which case, they really ought to give better consideration to the views they share with the world. But not the GOP. They think they should have the right to say whatever they want, no matter how extreme, and face no consequences. They think freedom of speech means freedom from the consequences of that speech. They’re deeply, deeply, wrong.

Where is your personal responsibility Ben Carson?

Skin color can help identify “typical bad guys”

The reactions to the massacre at Charlie Hebdo in France have ranged from those who have condemned the terrorists to those like Rush Limbaugh, who claimed that President Obama’s response to Benghazi is partly responsible for the attacks on the satirical French weekly. One of the more outlandish (and bigoted) responses came from Shannon Bream, one of the hosts of Fox News’ Outnumbered:

BREAM: That’s my question about these guys. If we know they were speaking unaccented French and they had ski masks on, do we even know what color they were, what the tone of their skin was? I mean, what if they didn’t look like typical bad guys? As we define them when we think about terror groups.

Ok, so there’s a “typical look” for bad guys. Not only that, but skin color is a good indicator of whether or not someone is a good guy or a bad guy. I can play this game:

Timothy McVeigh. USAmerican citizen. Domestic Terrorist. White guy.
Amanda & Gerad Miller. Anti-police, anti-government WHITE supremacists. In 2014, they took the lives of two police officers in what they considered the opening salvo of a revolution. They had ties to the Tea Party. Oh, and they were white.
The Ku Klux Klan. This WHITE organization has a legacy of terrorism directed at People of Color, especially African-Americans.
In August of 2012, Wade Michael Page entered a Sikh temple in Wisconsin, determined to kill as many people as possible. This act of domestic terrorism took the lives of 6 people. This xenophobic, neo-Nazi is, as you can see, a white guy.
Scott Roeder. Forced birther and white man currently serving a life sentence for the murder of abortion doctor George Tiller in 2009.
Theodore “Ted” Kaczynski aka the ‘Unabomber’. Between 1978 and 1995, he planted or mailed numerous home-made bombs. Took the lives of 23 people. White guy.

If skin color is a good indicator of whether or not someone is good or bad, what does that say about how white people should be treated, given the actions of the above killers?

Shannon Bream ought to familiarize herself with logic. It can be her friend.

Skin color can help identify “typical bad guys”

Skin color can help identify "typical bad guys"

The reactions to the massacre at Charlie Hebdo in France have ranged from those who have condemned the terrorists to those like Rush Limbaugh, who claimed that President Obama’s response to Benghazi is partly responsible for the attacks on the satirical French weekly. One of the more outlandish (and bigoted) responses came from Shannon Bream, one of the hosts of Fox News’ Outnumbered:

BREAM: That’s my question about these guys. If we know they were speaking unaccented French and they had ski masks on, do we even know what color they were, what the tone of their skin was? I mean, what if they didn’t look like typical bad guys? As we define them when we think about terror groups.

Ok, so there’s a “typical look” for bad guys. Not only that, but skin color is a good indicator of whether or not someone is a good guy or a bad guy. I can play this game:

Timothy McVeigh. USAmerican citizen. Domestic Terrorist. White guy.
Amanda & Gerad Miller. Anti-police, anti-government WHITE supremacists. In 2014, they took the lives of two police officers in what they considered the opening salvo of a revolution. They had ties to the Tea Party. Oh, and they were white.
The Ku Klux Klan. This WHITE organization has a legacy of terrorism directed at People of Color, especially African-Americans.
In August of 2012, Wade Michael Page entered a Sikh temple in Wisconsin, determined to kill as many people as possible. This act of domestic terrorism took the lives of 6 people. This xenophobic, neo-Nazi is, as you can see, a white guy.
Scott Roeder. Forced birther and white man currently serving a life sentence for the murder of abortion doctor George Tiller in 2009.
Theodore “Ted” Kaczynski aka the ‘Unabomber’. Between 1978 and 1995, he planted or mailed numerous home-made bombs. Took the lives of 23 people. White guy.

If skin color is a good indicator of whether or not someone is good or bad, what does that say about how white people should be treated, given the actions of the above killers?

Shannon Bream ought to familiarize herself with logic. It can be her friend.

Skin color can help identify "typical bad guys"

“I don’t support marriage equality. It doesn’t mean I’m anti-gay!”

Thus spake Laura Ingraham, Tea Party pundit, and Fox News guest host.

On her radio show today, conservative Tea Party pundit and recent ABC News contributor Laura Ingraham talked about Mike Huckabee’s threat to leave the GOP if the Party doesn’t fight same-sex marriage. While she spoke in support of him, she attempted to soften her stance.

According to Ingraham, being against the right of same-sex couples to marry doesn’t make someone anti-gay. And being against the right of same-sex couples to marry doesn’t mean someone is judging other people.

Having totally not squared that circle, Ingraham then suggests she might open to same-sex marriage as long as it can be proven that “it’s ultimately about what’s best for the children” and has a long history of working.

“What do we know definitively works, and worked, and what is still an unknown, what did [our country] historically believe?”

Which is like saying you’re totally up for changing your hatred of chocolate as long as someone can prove that for centuries it has tasted like vanilla.

“To say that you’re for traditional marriage doesn’t say that you’re anti-gay people or you don’t like gay people… nobody’s saying that.”

Words. It’s like she doesn’t know how they work.

Point the first-
Marriage is not about children. There is no need for advocates of marriage equality to prove that same-sex marriage is beneficial to children. If you’re going to argue that married people must have children, then you’re going to have to also go up against heterosexual people who choose not to have kids. You’re also going to have to go up against heterosexual people who cannot have kids. You’re also going to have to go up against heterosexual people whose kids have grown up.
Point the second-
You’re operating under a dictionary definition of hatred. That you don’t literally wake up every morning, drink your cuppa, wash your face, brush your teeth, feed your pets, and conclude with a daily mantra of “I hates the gayz” does not prevent you from being homophobic. Homophobia is more than just hatred of gays. It encompasses discrimination and bigotry directed at gays. It covers prejudicial or biased opinions of gays simply because they’re gay. It covers disgust or disdain shown to people who are or are perceived as being gay simply for being gay. It also covers treating gay people as less than human-i.e. denying them the same rights as heterosexuals (equal protection under the eyes of the law).
Point the third-
Your opposition to marriage equality-at the core-is an irrational, bigoted position that is not based on empirical evidence. It is based on your antiquated, regressive religious views.

Accept your inner homophobe. We all know that you don’t advocate for marriage equality. We know you’d be happy enshrining discrimination into the US constitution. We know you’re not going to skip hand in hand with us at gay pride parades.
And really, that’s fine, because I don’t think there’s enough soap in the world to get the homophobe off me if I touched you.

“I don’t support marriage equality. It doesn’t mean I’m anti-gay!”

"I don't support marriage equality. It doesn't mean I'm anti-gay!"

Thus spake Laura Ingraham, Tea Party pundit, and Fox News guest host.

On her radio show today, conservative Tea Party pundit and recent ABC News contributor Laura Ingraham talked about Mike Huckabee’s threat to leave the GOP if the Party doesn’t fight same-sex marriage. While she spoke in support of him, she attempted to soften her stance.

According to Ingraham, being against the right of same-sex couples to marry doesn’t make someone anti-gay. And being against the right of same-sex couples to marry doesn’t mean someone is judging other people.

Having totally not squared that circle, Ingraham then suggests she might open to same-sex marriage as long as it can be proven that “it’s ultimately about what’s best for the children” and has a long history of working.

“What do we know definitively works, and worked, and what is still an unknown, what did [our country] historically believe?”

Which is like saying you’re totally up for changing your hatred of chocolate as long as someone can prove that for centuries it has tasted like vanilla.

“To say that you’re for traditional marriage doesn’t say that you’re anti-gay people or you don’t like gay people… nobody’s saying that.”

Words. It’s like she doesn’t know how they work.

Point the first-
Marriage is not about children. There is no need for advocates of marriage equality to prove that same-sex marriage is beneficial to children. If you’re going to argue that married people must have children, then you’re going to have to also go up against heterosexual people who choose not to have kids. You’re also going to have to go up against heterosexual people who cannot have kids. You’re also going to have to go up against heterosexual people whose kids have grown up.
Point the second-
You’re operating under a dictionary definition of hatred. That you don’t literally wake up every morning, drink your cuppa, wash your face, brush your teeth, feed your pets, and conclude with a daily mantra of “I hates the gayz” does not prevent you from being homophobic. Homophobia is more than just hatred of gays. It encompasses discrimination and bigotry directed at gays. It covers prejudicial or biased opinions of gays simply because they’re gay. It covers disgust or disdain shown to people who are or are perceived as being gay simply for being gay. It also covers treating gay people as less than human-i.e. denying them the same rights as heterosexuals (equal protection under the eyes of the law).
Point the third-
Your opposition to marriage equality-at the core-is an irrational, bigoted position that is not based on empirical evidence. It is based on your antiquated, regressive religious views.

Accept your inner homophobe. We all know that you don’t advocate for marriage equality. We know you’d be happy enshrining discrimination into the US constitution. We know you’re not going to skip hand in hand with us at gay pride parades.
And really, that’s fine, because I don’t think there’s enough soap in the world to get the homophobe off me if I touched you.

"I don't support marriage equality. It doesn't mean I'm anti-gay!"