Matt Barber Freaks Out

We knew the Christian Right would be unhappy over any recognition that homosexuals are equal members of society worthy of protection under the law like everyone else, but I had no idea they'd completely freak out like Matt Barber does over Obama's agenda on those fronts. To hear Barber speak we are being invaded by aliens that are going to suck our nuptials right out of us:

"[Obama's] stated plans include the following:

Defeating all state and federal constitutional efforts to defend the millennia-old definition of natural marriage from attacks by 'gay marriage' activists. Repealing the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1996. This is the only line of defense keeping all 50 states from being forced to recognize so-called 'same-sex marriages' from extremely liberal states like Massachusetts and Connecticut."

Line of defense? Attacks? "Histrionic" and "propaganda" are too kind to describe or Barber's alarmist pig-squealing rhetoric. Let's start with the big lie. The definition of marriage has been different all over the world and has changed considerably over the last millenia. One man/one woman, one man/several women, one woman/several men, two people of any gender, and group marriage have all existed over the last millenia, and in some parts of the world the one man/one woman variety is still a minority. The notion that today's debate seeks to change something that has been unchanged and uniform for 1,000 years is either ignorance of staggering proportions, or an outright lie. Since people like Barber have been told this over and over, the latter seems the most likely explanation. Go read your Bible Mr. Barber, polygamy is common.

While you are at it, explain what form, exactly, this supposed attack on traditional marriage takes? Are heterosexuals no longer allowed to get married? Are they going to be forced to get divorces and marry gay people? Just where is the beef here? To get an idea of how absurd Barber's argument is, imagine if a soccer team advertised itself as a football team, and the NFL reacted like this:

"We must defend the millennia-old definition of football from attacks by 'futbol' activists. We must keep all 50 states from being forced to recognize so-called 'futbol' games from extremely soccer-friendly states like Texas and California."

After we all stopped laughing, the crucial question would be asked: what exactly, is the harm to the NFL if soccer teams start calling themselves "futbol" teams? Are they prevented from playing football? Is anyone going to be harmed from this change? If not, then what exactly does the NFL need protection from?

So Matt Barber, what exactly do people in monogamous relationships need protecting from? Insert sound of crickets chirping here.

"Passing constitutionally dubious and discriminatory 'hate crimes' legislation, granting homosexuals and cross-dressers exclusive rights – denied other Americans – based on sexual behaviors that are deviant, changeable, and widely regarded both here and around the world as immoral."

You know your arguments against hate crimes are ridiculous when an ardent opponent of hate crimes like me comes down on you for them (for me existing crimes against assault and murder are sufficient). Again, this description is so dishonest, and the truth so impossible to hide from, I can only assume that once again Barber found the truth just too inconvenient for his political agenda, and hoped his ignorant followers would be too lazy to notice.

The laws are not based on the behavior of the victim, but on the motivation of the perpetrator. The idea is to make it a crime to attack someone merely because of their perceived gayness, which in turn is (if true) determined by orientation, not behavior. To illustrate, imagine I am walking down the street with a male friend, and some redneck decides we are gay and attacks us. We're the victims of a hate crime, gay or not.

It is interesting here to point out yet another front of hypocrisy from people like Barber on this issue. They claim not allowing gays to marry each other is not discriminatory because gays have the same right to marry a member of the opposite sex as anyone else. Well, no one is stopping heterosexuals from choosing to look or act gay and be the victim of hate crimes either. They can't have it both ways. If homosexuality is to be treated as a choice, then they can't whine if they perceive homosexuals as getting some privilege they want, since they too could choose to get it.

Finally, since when does Barber care what the rest of the world considers immoral anyway? Well, when it suits his argument of course. The rest of the time he's warning of the dangers of allowing the world to dictate our morality and lifestyle. If the rest of the world, or at least the part most culturally similar to us, say Europe, decided homosexuality was a healthy variant in society and was to be treated like everyone else with regard to marriage, is Barber going to support that position?

"Passing the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) which would force business owners (religious and otherwise) to abandon traditional values relative to sexual morality under penalty of law."

Again, this is stark nonsense. The laws forbid those business owners from discriminating in their hiring/firing and promoting against gays. They may hold whatever values in their own life they choose. This is one of the many ways people like Barber insanely interpret their freedom of religion as allowing them to violate those rights in others. The right to free speech does not give one the right to shout down dissenters exercising their rights.

"Creating intentionally motherless and fatherless homes and sexually confusing untold thousands of children by expanding 'gay adoption.'"

This idiotic statement is born of the assumption that being gay is a choice, and thus children can be "turned gay". Barber has no scientific basis for this or any of his other proclamations. He is afraid of the gay bogey man. Children are going to no more be sexually confused by being raised with a gay couple than they are to be raised by a single man who lives with his brother. To hear Barber talk, homosexual couples have sex in front of the children they adopt.

It is also worth noting how irrational Barber is that he decries an adoptive home of homosexuals as fatherless/motherless while ignoring the fact that those children come out of situations where they are both fatherless and motherless.

"People of faith, conservatives, and those of you with traditional values: hold on to your hats – it's going to be a bumpy four years."

Yes, if you think your freedom of religion gives you the right to discriminate against homosexuals. It is just like your racist brethren 40 years ago who resisted being told they could no longer discriminate against blacks, and those before them who thought it was OK to discriminate against those who held different religious beliefs. Change is indeed coming. Keep up, or be left behind.

Surreal Blago

Gotta love Blago, and his record off-topic defense:

“What did I do in this case but provide health care for low-income families?” the governor asked at one point during the nearly hour-long speech. “How is it an impeachable offense to protect low-income parents from losing their healthcare? How is it an impeachable offense to keep those families in a position to be able to see their doctors?”

“...how can you throw a governor out of office who was acting to protect the lives of senior citizens and infants and trying to find ways to be able to help families?”

Good to see lunacy is not restricted to right wingers.

Some Unabashed Patriotism

It's nice to be able to feel proud again. We all love America, but we aren't always proud of her. Bill Maher says it well with this primo New Rules. It gets particularly good at the 4:05 mark. My favorite lines:

"We invented rock n' roll, jazz, funk, R&B and hip hop. Without us your Ipods would be filled with Abba, Menudo, and Men at Work.

In what other nation would they tax young people to make sure old people can get erections?"

Maher is quite underrated for comedy timing. His is extremely good.

Irreducibly Complex Ear Wax

No, I'm not kidding. Ear wax. The creationists want us to get excited over ear wax:

"People are able to groom themselves in a way so as to keep external parasites (fleas, ticks) and other irritants at bay. But what about the inaccessible recesses of the ear, with its delicate eardrum? This auditory canal must be open to the world in order to take in sounds, but that means it is also vulnerable to potential pathogens. Thankfully, the Creator has provided a remarkable defense against the tiny invaders that occasionally find their way in."

Most of these arguments just show how little imagination the creationists have. Would crabs just crawl along were I a God creating the universe? Hell, they'd have wings equipped with lasers. And with a nod to South Park, what's wrong with a 6-foot talking taco that shits ice cream? How about a river of maple syrup with pancake shores? The mind boggles. And yet we are supposed to get all a-quiver because a one celled creature, who we had no hope of even seeing for the bulk of our existence, has a complicated mode of locomotion? Please.

The intelligent design movement continues its slide into irrelevancy and hilarity. Hat tip: Evolutionblog.

Cell Phone Sounds? What the

And the award for congressman with the poorest prioritization skills goes to Peter King, for his Camera Phone Predator Alert Act, which would require all cell phone cameras to make an audible click when taking photos. Apparently too many kids are taking too many voyeuristic pictures, and this poses a threat to national security, or something.

In Honor of the Super Bowl: God on Sports

Since we are doomed to see lots of players moronically thanking the gods for interfering in the competition and aiding their side (because obviously the omnipotent creator of the universe has nothing else to do), I thought we could comfort ourselves with a couple of quotes on the subject:

"God fights on the side with the best artillery."
-Napoleon Bonaparte

"Prayer works best if you have
larger players."
--Vince Lombardi

Continents of Garbage

If you haven't yet heard about the massive floating garbage islands in the Pacific, check it out. They are estimated in size anywhere from twice Texas to the size of the entire lower 48. They are not so much islands as a thick soup of plastic, which is killing animals both above (who can't digest the shiny stuff they swallow) and below, from interference with sunlight and other natural processes. They also are the ultimate tragedy of the commons, with no one in the world anxious to take responsibility for them, and no one with a realistic plan for removing them.