Narrow, Reactionary and Judgemental

And today, folks, I'm talking about me. Because I did something I've never done before: cut off someone who used to be a friend on a philosophical difference. And I feel like shit about it. I've always been of the opinion that if someone is a good friend, agreement isn't always necessary. I have a friends who disagree with me on politics, religion; I'm friendly with an ex who regards my feminist standpoints with (highly irritating) amusement; hell, even my Ferret doesn't see eye to eye with me on the importance of proper moisturizing. But we can work it out, it's cool. 

The thing is, I also realized, being my friend also implies some inherent assumptions: you think I'm as good as everybody else, you think I'm fully human and worthy, and you care about my well-being. 

And today, someone I thought was an IRL friend wrote a blog entry about Prop 8 and gay civil rights that smashed all those fragile and carefully-held assumptions I'd clung to so stubbornly, and it was just the end. 

Let no one say I can't cite my sources for outrage. Here're some quotes:

"...LGBT's are gonna be shoving this down our throats for the next six months to a year until they get their way."

"I honestly don't care about same-sex marriage. It doesn't effect me, and if it were up to me, sure, let 'em enjoy all the trials and tribulations of marriage. Because life is just so much better when you do your taxes with your hump-buddy, and when breaking up involves a divorce lawyer on top of looking for an apartment and deciding who gets to keep the Barbara Streisand CD's."

"Like I said, I don't really care enough either way. What I disagree with is that they KEEP PUSHING FOR IT. ...Seriously. It's been denied in almost every state, in arenas both political and judicial, denied by the Supreme Court, Congress, and countless other institutions that this country's system of government relies on to make decisions. It's been proposed. In most cases, it's been shut down. Just move to Maryland and get over it."

:It's just part of the growing trend of "Things are only good if we (whoever we happen to be at the time) get our way" I see in this country. And I honestly see it as the beginning of the end of America."

Oh, and there's more. When I fired off a seriously angry reply (and he knew I would read it and reply), there was more. My reply wasn't exactly mature, thoughtful, and considered- observe my wrath.

"There is so much wrong with this entry I almost don't know where to start. But how about here: dumbass, "majority rules" isn't how our government actually works. If I hear one more asshole talk about 'judges legislating from the bench', I'll scream. Fucktard, the majority should not be allowed to decide on rights for minorities. For one, that's fucked up. Nobody should be allowed to decide someone's civil rights. For another, it never works; the majority is incapable of making decisions that benefit anything other than itself. "The majority" didn't end segregation. The Supreme Court did. And by the way, unless you are a member of an oppressed minority of second-class citizens- which you aren't- you don't have the fucking right to tell that group to get over it. ... Just because you've never experienced what they have, or don't understand it, doesn't mean it's invalid. 

...Now, YOU are perfectly free to marry the person you love; hell, you can marry some random stranger in Vegas, as long as she has a vagina. But I can't marry the person I love. THAT is fucked up. A bunch of people who don't know me deciding whether I'm worthy enough to be treated like a whole human being? THAT is the beginning of the end of America. So no, getting over it ISN'T A FUCKING OPTION!, you libertarian asshole.
So yes, I am EXTREMELY pissed off at you for this. And hey, thanks for saying you "don't care" either way. That's real generous of you, pal. You know, you have gay friends, but you couldn't just be supportive of them, oh no. You had to be a complete dick about the lack of civil rights for a group you know nothing about. You're really not as astute as you think you are.
Shithead.

So yeah, lots of anger, but it doesn't mean I was wrong. And you'd think he wouldn't have the audacity to defend himself... nope. So this is my blog therapy, folks; I'm gettin' allll my rage out. Here's his reply, and OUR (double-barrelled) mean, angry blog-sponse to it. My comments are in blue, and in a wacky spurt of angry guest-blogging, please observe my Ferret's bitchy comments in yellow:

"Alright... let's cover ground I've covered before. You are not being denied a righ [sic]. 

Oh, well then! I feel much better now! 

Wait a second: life liberty and the pursuit of happiness- you sure none of these rights are being violated?

 You are bound by the laws of the country you live in.

Newsflash: not now nor ever has "law" and "good" ever been entirely synonymous. 

In this country (in most states, anyway), Sodomy (defined as anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex, copulation of any kind with the same sex, see above. and/or bestiality) is illegal.  

Because straight couples get arrested for having anal or oral sex all the time.

 Also, in this country, a marriage isn't considered to be legally viable unless it is consumated (involving copulation with one's partner). 

Uh, how will they know? Big Brother is watching? 

Thus, to legalize gay marriage, and to allow those marriages to be considered legally viable, every gay couple that got married would have to be fined or arrested under decency code laws. Or people would be allowed to marry their dogs. 

Aw come on, not that bullshit again. Even the fundies have started to let go of that. 

Exactly how many laws and/or world-wide recognized definitions of words do you want them to change just so you can file your taxes together? 

Just the one, as far as I can tell. 

Worldwide? Last I checked, Christianity (and its definition of marriage) rules less than a third of the human population.

The bottom line is, there are plenty of places in the world (and even a few in America) that gays and lesbians CAN get married, with all benefits thereof. Yeah? La-dee-fuckin-da. Blacks had their own drinking fountains, yet they weren't satisfied. Hmmm... Yeah, she's being nicer than I would.

"But I don't want to move, I want them to change the law everywhere." That doesn't seem in the least bit selfish to you? 

Uh no, it seems like federal equality. Call me selfish. You mean, wanting my civil rights is selfish? How about you move instead? Like to Hell's Waiting Room.

Making phone calls, writing letters, and marching in parades takes little-to-no dedication. Moving to a different state (or in extreme cases, a different country) does.

Read as: "Move away, so I don't have to think about or be responsible to the people I'm helping to disenfranchise".

Wait, so I can try to change the law for everyone's equal rights, or just move? Which is easier again?

 That is why Democracy is an inherently flawed system, and how it leads to a nation-state with the "gimmies". It no longer takes dedication, it takes finding enough people who agree with you to make the news (or to make lawmakers uncomfortable).

And that doesn't take dedication? As though all you have to do is go out and say, 'Hi. Sign this.' at random and suddenly all the laws change. 

And you know we wouldn't want the poor lawmakers to be uncomfortable.

From there, it's just a series of "gimmies". Once the people realize that they don't have to leave their country to get a government they like, the ship is sinking fast. 

Yeah, how dare people think America should have a government that treats everyone equally?

I'm sorry, I snoozed through that part. It sounded like "blah blah, blah blah, I'm always right, blah blah selfish welfare people, blah blah my penis blah". Did I miss anything?

And seriously, being treated like a "whole person"? Marriage is a tax break, nothing more. Uh, really? Are we using the same dictionary? If you need a piece of paper to tell you that you love the person you're with, there are a lot more problems than the political system here. 

Someone graduated from Deliberately Obtuse University, with a major in Missing The Point.
Yes, there are other benefits to marriage, oh really?? ya think?? such as insurance policies that extend to one's spouse, undisputed legal entitlement to inheritance, etc. But those laws CAN be changed easily, and already have been in many states. 

And HOW much in paperwork and legal fees does that require, again? While straights can just get a marriage license?

In most of the U.S. it's now possible to name a domestic partner, or ANYONE, for that matter, as a beneficiary. 

Uh-huh. Sure, pal. Cause separate-but-equal has worked SO well in the past.
...
 In closing, I've said it a thousand times before, but I'll say it again here: An unbiased opinion is the ONLY valid and viable opinion. [insert mad cackling laughter here] By being a member of a minority group, one's opinion on the treatement of that minority group is inherently and unavoidably biased. 

Yes, because the majority's opinion of the treatment it receives is totally unbiased. Sounds like Fallacious Logic, 101. 

A neutral party is the only one who can offer a clear-headed, unbiased opinion. Oh, like yours, you mean?

And like I've said, MULTIPLE times, if it were up to me, a neutral party,hey I was right, he did mean himself! gay marriage would be legal.

 Oh, thank you! Cause I need your approval. No, really.

 If it were up to me, a LOT of things in the legal system would be different. Carrot Top for President! But they're not. 

Awww, come on. Nobody likes a pouter. 

And they're the way they are because the legal system that defines this country has declared it as such. 

Again with "law" always being the same as "the right thing". You gotta let go of that. 

You get gay marriage when I get the right to kill drug dealers. Getting married and playing God aren't the same.  Sound fair? 

No, not really. What did that have to do with anything?

And you're right, I do have gay friends. 

Well, you have a few less after this post, I bet. Asshole.

I also have friends that do drugs, and think they should be legalized. I don't think the laws should be changed for them, either. 

Did you just seriously compare gay marriage to drug use? Really? REALLY?? 

 There's a difference between being supportive and changing your views on a subject simply because you're friends with someone who doesn't agree with you. 

You're right. There is. But there's a bigger difference between not agreeing with someone and not understanding why they deserve the SAME friggin' civil rights as everyone else. So we can't be friends. I'm sorry. 

I'm not!

Wow, this turned out to be a really long post. Congratulations, anyone who got to the end! 

So, I'm feeling angry and guilty and maybe also angry about my guilt, and now I'm all typed out. Any thoughts?