Don’t Be Right March 11, 2011

Don’t Be Right

It’s not just the Religious Right that’s the problem. It’s the Right in general:

(via Toothpaste for Dinner)


Browse Our Archives

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • I actually ran into someone of the “secular right” variety on facebook last week…it was rather saddening (and yes, they directed it AT me)

  • Mike in FL

    Seems to me that the “secular right” take their marching orders from the “religious right”.

  • Iason Ouabache

    Mike in FL: It’s more like they hide behind the relgious right.

  • Reginald Selkirk

    The GOP invited the religious right into the tent in order to get the votes they needed. Once inside, the RR made themselves right at home, and have made a right royal mess. I hope some old school conservatives feel ashamed and fearful about how things have developed.

  • Miko

    Well, the Right is half of the problem at any rate.

  • Well, I am Libertarian and thus rather right-wing (especially compared to other Germans) however, this does not mean that I am against homosexuals. Not all right-wingers are.

  • Liz

    *drum roll*

    and let the generic “why do you post so much about gays?…this is supposed to be about atheists only!” comments begin.

    Probably followed by complaints about how you’re discriminating against republicans or something…since those generic ‘why gay news?’ comments are probably from some of the righty atheists on this site

  • MaryD

    It has always been in the nature of the ‘left’ to collect support from all aggrieved peoples.

    They can then storm the barricades of society chanting the mantra “Change! Change!”.

    Of course once they gain power this disparate grouping finds that though they wanted ‘change’ it isn’t neccessarily in the same direction.

    Suckers.

  • Kevin S.

    Rejistania, when we talk about the Religious Right, we’re generally discussion social conservatism, not fiscal conservatism. With apologies to Jim DeMint, the former is not a requirement of the latter, and as someone who also self-identifies as a libertarian, I can definitely say I am part of neither the Religious Right nor the Secular Right when it comes to social issues.

  • It is apathy that is the problem. Someone should put a stop to it.

  • Margaret

    Hmm, I consider myself pretty right-wing and I have nothing at all against homosexuals. Live and let live.

  • ATL-Apostate

    I’m in the same boat as Margaret – Pretty right wing when it comes to politics. This basically means I can’t stand the Republicans or Democrats for various reasons. I love homosexual folks, however. Some of my closest friends etc. etc.

    I’ve never actually met an atheist or secular person who was anti-gay. I’m sure they exist, but I would think they are pretty rare birds. But come to think of it, I’ve never met (in person) a “right wing” atheist like myself. Maybe I’M the rare bird… the white crow if you will.

    Nearly everyone who is anti-homosexual holds that opinion based on religious reasoning. But even then, you can’t say every religious person is anti-homosexual. Some faith communities openly embrace homosexuals.

    I get the cartoon, but in real life, it’s best not to use to broad a brush when painting someone else.

  • Silent Service

    I call bullshit. Conservative secular people don’t really care who you sleep with or marry. They believe in small government with minimal intrusion into people’s lives. The Religious Right believes in legislating morality and controlling your lives to meet their social expectations.

  • skiercat

    Remember, not all right-wingers are racists but all racists are right-wingers.

  • Secular Stu

    It’s bullshit. I remember the 2004 state-level anti-gay measures that passed. Looking at the results for those measures, IIRC at least half of the Democrats in those states had to have voted against the gays. (See also (.pdf))

    It’s pretty fucking stupid to think an ideology that believes in “smaller government” is the bigger problem than an ideology that believes “homosexuality is an abomination”.

  • JD

    Not all liberal leaning people are pro gay rights either. If it’s any consolation, attitudes are shifting, but it’s slow going. Changing ingrained social attitudes is almost never a fast process. I think a few percent a year change their mind, and that’s pretty quick for social change.

    I think political parties make the change slower though, because parties seem to vote in groups, I can’t just vote for one person in a primary and not another and hope they vote differently.

  • With all of these nice Libertarian sentiments, perhaps we can look forward to a prominent tea-party candidate campaigning to get government religious proclamations off our currency, buildings, and mottos. Anybody? Anybody? I didn’t think so…

  • ewan

    This doesn’t hold water at all; a significant part of right-wing thinking is personal freedom – that everyone has the right to do whatever they want until or unless it harms someone else (the old “Your right to swing your fist stops at the end of my nose” idea).

    That sort of right-winger simply doesn’t care who anyone else chooses to live or sleep with.

  • Claudia

    My understanding is that the secular right is largely made up of fiscal conservatives who mostly don’t give a shit who you sleep with. Yes, there are a few morons who hold onto secular homophobia (using rationalizations that would make a creationist applaud in admiration) but they are very much a minority within the secular right.

    That being said there are plenty of people on the secular right who are perfectly willing to vote for social conservatives if it means they get their fiscal wishes. Many may not care who you fuck or who you marry, but also feel that their tax-cut is more important than your civil rights, so GOP it is.

    I like to think that there is a group of fiscal conservatives/social liberals who are unwilling to step on GLBT rights or endanger a woman’s right to her own body and that those people are sadly shit out of luck. There is increasingly no viable alternative for the social-liberal fiscal-conservative, as the GOP has become more and more extreme.

  • Danitoba

    I think we can safely say there is a consensus among right wing atheists that we love gay people.

    Sorry to burst everyone else’s bubble.

  • Gregory Marshall

    The secular right is some that has read Ayn Rand. The secular left is someone that understands Ayn Rand.

  • Ross

    By the way, there is actually a group blog called Secular Right, and it has a gay contributor, Walter Olson.

  • stogoe

    Boy, Hemant, you sure stirred up the Straight White Male Pity Party Libertarians, didn’t you? Look at all that anecdata, hoo boy.

    There are a lot more forced-birth atheists than stone-the-gays atheists, to be sure, but they’re out there. Frankly I’m more concerned about the market-worshippers. They’re more dangerous than the white straight males who get squicky feelings in their peepees.

  • Lost Left Coaster

    I’m sure that a lot of people on the secular right don’t have a problem with gay people per se. The real issue is that the secular right’s ideology is based on the fact that they do not care for their fellow human beings at all, and in fact think it is morally wrong for the government to lend a helping hand to people.

    We’re living in an era where right-wing governors all over the nation are cutting education, social services, and public transit funding, while also cutting corporate taxes (and even proposing to abolish them, like Rick Scott in Florida), so that their rich friends have even more money to spend on ivory backscratchers.

    Not to mention that there isn’t a single significant secular rightist out there who is, say, calling for action to be taken against global warming. The right, with and without gods, is not only content to let the planet burn, but is pushing hard for it to do so even faster by disrupting any effort to even moderately reduce carbon emissions.

    So yeah, when it comes down to it, I don’t much care whether or not a person is secular or non-secular, if the rest of his or her ideology is so despicable.

  • Ottawaanon

    And the secular arguments against gays put forth by the right are what…..

  • Mark C.

    Usually one of these, most likely:
    1. It’s so ICKY!!!!
    2. It’s not natural!!!1

    I think my conservative, anti-gay, atheist father takes the more “while it is icky, I hate gays’ flamboyance” tack.

  • You’re alienating a large group of atheists here. I am an Objectivist (sort of like a snooty libertarian) and that means that I am “more right tof center” than you are (as well as great deal more left of center).

    I advertise on here about my atheist blog that often takes a “right” perspective (although it’s actually my perspective, but it certainly doesn’t vote with the left).

    The secular right seems to be fiscal conservatives, with the stupid social conservative parts. There is a non-religious right, and it isn’t biased against gays, and what about the Objectivists/Libertarians that don’t agree with left on half the issues but are still likely atheist and pro-choice and gays and etc…

    There are christians on the left and the right, and there are anti-gays on both sides as well. Just wanted to point that out.

  • I also find it mighty curious that so many anti right wing people are condemning them for not supporting personal freedoms, but at the same time mock or are derisive towards the libertarian ideology which is a more liberal ideology.

    Like “I hate right wingers for being against gays, it’s their life don’t interfere!” and then right after “Libertarians? Man screw those guys! They think people should always have a choice.”

  • ewan

    The real issue is that the secular right’s ideology is based on the fact that they do not care for their fellow human beings at all, and in fact think it is morally wrong for the government to lend a helping hand to people.

    The one doesn’t follow from the other. It’s quite possible to care for your fellow human beings and do something about helping them yourself, and think that other people shouldn’t step in to tell you how to do it.

    Notably, the generally more right-wing US has a considerably stronger culture of charitable giving, even amongst lower and middle income people than we do in Europe where a lot of ‘charities’ are mostly reliant on state funding.

  • Lost Left Coaster

    @ewan: I find your comment amusing — the reason we have more charity in the United States is precisely because it is needed to make up for the lack of state support for human welfare. Many European countries with strong social systems have much higher standards of living and overall quality of life, precisely because this is what their governments invest in. In the United States, our government prefers to invest in building up an enormous military. Private charity has to step in and try to plug some of the gap, but it is not able to come even close to what is needed.

    On another note, to other commenters: I’ve never really found libertarians to be, ultimately, in favor of all that much freedom. They just prefer different masters — mega-corporations instead of government. And libertarians are certainly always in favor of people having the freedom to starve to death in the street, and everyone else having the freedom to choose to just not care.

    Sorry, I have little patience for libertarians, snooty or otherwise — it’s a naive and destructive worldview. And I’m no state socialist; I am skeptical of state power too, but more in the form of, say, government intrusions on civil liberties, and the existence of a massive military-industrial complex. I don’t feel that modest social welfare programs that, say, provide health insurance at low cost to children, are a threat to “freedom.”

  • Alex

    It’s really quite amusing to see the “fiscal conservatives” trying to argue that they have nothing to do with them evil “social conservatives”, and then turning around and supporting Sarah Appalin and other teabaggers as sane and needed change. Because, you see, in order to get out of financial disaster we need to lower taxes for the rich and stop spending them on the poor. Makes perfect sense. Let them stupid unemployed bums die; they don’t work anyway.

    Also, what Lost Left Coaster said.

  • Eric Hackenberger:

    I also find it mighty curious that so many anti right wing people are condemning them for not supporting personal freedoms, but at the same time mock or are derisive towards the libertarian ideology which is a more liberal ideology.

    Like “I hate right wingers for being against gays, it’s their life don’t interfere!” and then right after “Libertarians? Man screw those guys! They think people should always have a choice.”

    My advice is that you can’t win with these guys. The point is to be as partisan as possible and see nothing good in your political opponents. Thus when you point out that there are many socially libertarian right-wingers – or even social conservatives who think gay marriage is good for promoting fidelity – the rant changes to about how callous and evil you have to be to support a free market or a reduced welfare state.

    If it were ever about acceptance of homosexuals, then when these partisans learned that the GOP is moving ever so slowly – but moving nonetheless – to a world where being gay is just part of life, they would encourage the trend and move on.

    It’s annoying, but there are plenty of more reasonable liberals in the world if I feel like hearing from the other side of the aisle. And thank heavens for that.

  • Brian Macker

    Yeah, people on the secular right like Che Guevara are, all of them, a bunch of anti-gay bigots, and no it’s not prejudiced to make such a broad brushed statement, even if I don’t do it with a cartoon.

  • Brian Macker

    Alex,

    I’m a “teabagger” you bigot. … and you idiot that is NOT the position of the tea party. It started as a protest of bailouts for the rich, you ignoramus.

  • Brian Macker

    “Many European countries with strong social systems have much higher standards of living and overall quality of life, precisely because this is what their governments invest in. ”

    You don’t know squat about economics, and your interpretation of what is and has transpired is laughable.

  • Brian Macker

    “The real issue is that the secular right’s ideology is based on the fact that they do not care for their fellow human beings at all, and in fact think it is morally wrong for the government to lend a helping hand to people. ”

    Holy shit, you truly are an idiot.

  • Brian Macker

    skiercat,

    “Remember, not all right-wingers are racists but all racists are right-wingers.”

    National SOCIALIST party. Che “hates blacks” Guevara. Etc.

    I’m pretty sure the New Black Panthers are on the left and they’re a bunch of vile racists.

  • Brian Macker

    In fact, start I want the cartoonist to start naming people on the secular right who have said they hate gays.

    Since he’s not here and you have made this false claim, Hemant, it’s up to you to defend it.

  • dauntless

    Brian,

    I’m a “teabagger” you bigot

    And you set a good example for them.

    As for someone on the secular right, my brother in law is a tea baggin’ atheist. He says that the government should get out of the marriage business and that all marriage benefits should be transferred to civil unions (in other words, a full reform of the system where all forms of marriage are considered civil unions for legal purposes).

    However, in the meantime, says he, gays should not be allowed to marry, because muddying the waters with gay marriage would slow down the reform process.

    I agree with his ideals to some extent, but libertarians often have unrealistic expectations about how the world should work. Even the prophet Ayn Rand couldn’t adhere to her own “philosophy” through most of her life.

    Maybe I’m a bit pragmatic, but you can’t always tear down a complex system and build a new one from the ground up to make it work how you think it should. Marriage laws are on the books already, they should be modified, until that magic day when some libertarian genie claps his hands and changes it to read “civil union”.

  • Brian Macker

    Dauntless,

    I have no idea what you are talking about or why it has anything to do with the bigoted cartoon, the bigoted article, or the bigoted comments.

    Your friend’s position is his position, it’s not mine. See how that works. I hope you haven’t drawn any bigoted conclusions in claiming I’ve set a bad example, but frankly I have no clue what your thinking is.

    “Maybe I’m a bit pragmatic, but you can’t always tear down a complex system and build a new one from the ground up to make it work how you think it should.”
    This is such an ignorant statement. Never read Hayek or Popper I see. What do you think “conservative” means anyway? Geesh.
    You don’t understand, and are too ignorant to understand that you don’t understand.

    Back on topic.

    The charge that has been made is secular right equals “against homosexuals” with the tea party it was “teabagger” equals racist.

    Those positions are, of course, bigoted.
    I’m calling you individual bigots out.

    Hemant, Sakura, Micke in FL, Skiercat, Jeff P, Gregory Marshall, stogoe, Lost Left Coster,

    You are all a bunch of bigots.

    Lets see how this looks with another broad group.

    Hemant posts an article:

    Don’t be [Jewish]

    It’s not just the religious [Jews] that’s the problem. It’s the [Jews] in general:

    Cartoon: Religious [Jew], “God is against homosexuals” Secular [Jew], “I am against homosexuals”

    Sakura Says:

    “I actually ran into someone of the “secular jewish” variety on facebook last week…it was rather saddening (and yes, they directed it AT me)”

    Mike in FL Says:

    “Seems to me that the “secular right” take their marching orders from the “religious right”.”

    Skiercat Says:

    “Remember, not all [Jews] s are racists but all racists are [Jews].”

    Jeff P Says:

    “With all of these nice [Jewish] sentiments, perhaps we can look forward to a prominent [Jew] campaigning to get government religious proclamations off our currency, buildings, and mottos. Anybody? Anybody? I didn’t think so…”

    Brian’s note on above:[I have haven’t heard a single candidate of any stripe doing that. It would be political suicide. Is that a requirement for pro-gay candidates too. Must they run their campaigns on other peoples fringe issues. I’m an atheist and that’s not one of my main concerns. But hey lets say anything to make [Jews] look bad.]

    Gregory Marshall Says:

    “The [Jewish lobby] is some that has read Meir Kahane. The secular left is someone that understands Meir Kahane.”

    stogoe,

    “Boy, Hemant, you sure stirred up the Straight [Semetic] Male Pity Party Jews, didn’t you? Look at all that anecdata, hoo boy. There are a lot more forced-birth atheists than stone-the-gays atheists, to be sure, but they’re out there. Frankly I’m more concerned about the [money]-worshippers. They’re more dangerous than the [Semetic] straight males who get squicky feelings in their peepees.”

    Lost Left Coaster Says:

    “I’m sure that a lot of people on the secular [Jews] don’t have a problem with gay people per se. The real issue is that the secular [Jew]’s ideology is based on the fact that they do not care for their fellow human beings at all, and in fact think it is morally wrong for the government to lend a helping hand to people. “

    “I’ve never really found [secular Jews] to be, ultimately, in favor of all that much freedom. They just prefer different masters — mega-corporations instead of government. And [secular Jews] are certainly always in favor of people having the freedom to starve to death in the street, and everyone else having the freedom to choose to just not care. “

    What a load of bigoted shit.

    Alex,

    “It’s really quite amusing to see the “fiscal [Jews]” trying to argue that they have nothing to do with them evil “social [Jews]”, and then turning around and supporting Sarah Appalin and other [Kikes] as sane and needed change.”

    You know I don’t mind if you point out a specific issue and want to discuss why or why not, but this lump them and demonize them crap has got to stop.

    If you don’t want to look like a bunch of ignorant bigots then don’t post this garbage.

    If you’ve got problems on specific issues then discuss them.

    I’m sick of this garbage. I’m sick of people calling me racist who feel free to use my race or gender to discredit my ideas without even addressing them or knowing them.

    Yes, saying the tea party movement is racist is the same as calling anyone involved a racist, just like saying homosexual movement is racist would be to claim Hemant and the rest of you are racists. Get it.

    Some atheists are stupid irrationalist, and this is why I don’t attend atheist group meetings. I’m going to have to find another atheist blog that isn’t so full of bigots.

    It’s especially disappointing to find out Hemant thinks this way. I falsely assumed he’d know what it’s like. I was wrong.

    How would he like it if someone said “It’s not just the Religious Gays that’s the problem. It’s the Gays in general”

    I wonder if this is why you were chosen for a pie to the face.

  • Rodiel

    As a bisexual national socialist, am I an exception or not? Comparing Europe and America, the word “right” is used in each place in the almost exact opposite sense as the other, which is a bit confusing…

  • Alex

    “fiscal [Jews]”

    Oh my god, this is rich. Thanks, Brian, you made my day! 🙂

    See, all you have to do is compare yourself to a Jew, and everybody will instantly get your point 🙂

  • Brian Macker

    Alex,

    Stop acting like an ignorant bigot. You reason via guilt by association but you quite apparently got no problem with supporting the party that dropped the bomb, interred the Japanese, and was the party of slavery. I could go on and on in this vein. In other words, you are a hypocrite.

    Since I don’t reason the same way you do it is I who laugh at your accusations, and without any danger of being a hypocrite. I’m guilty of what, supporting Palin? Sorry, I’m not a Republican and would never vote for Palin.

    Although I’ve defended both her, and falsely accused Democrats of all kinds of partisan slander. Like getting in a fight with someone over the fact that Obama is a citizen, and getting “unfriended” for it.

    Being a bigot you just never realized that every black person doesn’t eat watermelon. Likewise everyone on the secular right isn’t a republican.

    Even if I was a republican I’d laugh at you. It’s not like the choices in politicas are so simple and rational.

    My choice is Democrat = screw the economy up even worse therefore harming the everybody, and mostly the poor, or what gay marriage? Sorry one thing is more important than the other. I don’t get to hand pick all my favorite positions in politics. It’s heads I win on this, this, and this, and lose on that, that and that, and tails I lose on this and win on that.

    … and here dauntless was whining about how he thought I wasn’t pragmatic on this issue. I am. I through gay rights under the bus, so people wouldn’t starve. Well, sort of because very few Republicans are smart about economics either, and there are multiple races.

    So my real choices when voting are lose on this and lose on that, or lose on that and lose on this.

    I’m sure that gays are feeling the sting on this right now. How’s Obama working out with regards to gay rights? I think McCain would have been a much better choice if that were your issue. Wouldn’t it have put the democrats to shame if a pro-gay republican out maneuvered them, sort of the way Bill Clinton stole the light on welfare reform?

    Your attitude however is inexcusable and ignorant. This isn’t about one side is evil and the other good. It’s about a bunch of primates on both sides who have a shallow grasp of reality forming into peer groups. I’m a forgiving fellow so maybe if you change your tune then I’ll think better of you.

    Meanwhile, I should but don’t take the advice of Hortenso: “My advice is that you can’t win with these guys. The point is to be as partisan as possible and see nothing good in your political opponents.”

    Your prior comment, that’s your inner ape reaching for the club.

    If you want gay rights why be so impractical and stupid as to work through only a single party? Why try to do it in ways that undermine the rule of law? Why demonize others in a bigoted and shortsighted way?

    My understanding is that there are ridiculous positions in every single ideology that’s out there.

    Here are some positions this particular person on the secular right might surprise you because you are a bigot:

    What is my position on progressive taxation?
    What is my position on abortion?
    What is my position on Good Samaritan law?
    What is my postion on the issue of whether mandatory insurance is a natural rights violation?
    What is my position on gay marriage?

    I betcha you get ever one of them wrong, and where you do get them right you will not know my reasoning, and in many cases not have the background knowledge to understand how I arrived at it.

    You will fail even with more hints. Like the fact that I believe in natural rights. That’s because in fact I disagree with other natural rights advocates on their origin, and nature. Hell I even disagree with them on the nature of knowledge.

    But none of that matters. I’m just a all powerful privileged white male republican whatever. A stereotype, a non-person, a racist, to be dismissed not on my reasoning but on your misunderstanding about how the world works and your stereotypes.

  • Brian Macker

    Threw not through, etc. I don’t usually proofread my typos, but I should.

  • Poyndexter

    Awww, other nonbelievers aren’t gathering around the fire to sing kumbaya and sip from the same steaming cauldron of societal-decay flavored kool-aid. 🙁
    What’s the matter? Is the righties’ resistance to fetishizing sexual deviancy as a rights issue of paramount importance bumming you out?

    Don’t be weird.

  • Alex

    Brian,

    Stop acting like an ignorant bigot. You reason via guilt by association but you quite apparently got no problem with supporting the party that dropped the bomb, interred the Japanese, and was the party of slavery. I could go on and on in this vein. In other words, you are a hypocrite.

    Since I don’t reason the same way you do it is I who laugh at your accusations, and without any danger of being a hypocrite. I’m guilty of what, supporting Palin? Sorry, I’m not a Republican and would never vote for Palin.

    “It’s unfair to assume that just because I’m a conservative, I’m also a Republican. By the way, you are a liberal, and as such must be a Democrat. Oh, and you are lynching negroes.”

    I’m sorry, Brian, but you do reason the exact way you say you don’t. Guilt by association, even though the association was never established.

    As far as voting for McPain, I’ve seen that bunch defended too many times on the grounds that “we need a strong fiscal conservative; social issues be damned.” If you don’t support her, good for you. I’m glad to know I am wrong and not every conservative is happy to support those nutjobs.

    My choice is Democrat = screw the economy up even worse therefore harming the everybody, and mostly the poor, or what gay marriage? Sorry one thing is more important than the other. I don’t get to hand pick all my favorite positions in politics. It’s heads I win on this, this, and this, and lose on that, that and that, and tails I lose on this and win on that.

    … and here dauntless was whining about how he thought I wasn’t pragmatic on this issue. I am. I through gay rights under the bus, so people wouldn’t starve. Well, sort of because very few Republicans are smart about economics either, and there are multiple races.

    So my real choices when voting are lose on this and lose on that, or lose on that and lose on this.

    Oh my gawd. What in the dreadful name of sleeping Cthulhu are you talking about? Maybe I need to finish my tequila to decipher this.

    The only thing I understood is that you are willing to sacrifice human rights so people would not starve. How do laws forbidding same-sex marriage feed starving people? I don’t see a connection.

    How’s Obama working out with regards to gay rights?

    Not to look like an Obama’s fanboy, but last time I checked, DADT repeal was initiated by him and his administration. I’m sure that’s an insignificant action in a broader perspective, but at least something was done. Especially when compared with the alternative.

    If you want gay rights why be so impractical and stupid as to work through only a single party?

    I personally don’t want “gay rights.” I would like to see people stop discriminating against others based on criteria that are wholly irrelevant to the issue. Besides, nothing was said about a single party; don’t be ridiculous.

    Why try to do it in ways that undermine the rule of law?

    Changing laws is undermining the rule of law? I’m not sure I’m following you.

    I betcha you get ever one of them wrong, and where you do get them right you will not know my reasoning, and in many cases not have the background knowledge to understand how I arrived at it.

    Why don’t you write about it? Otherwise, I will remain an ignorant liberal bigot that I am.

    You will fail even with more hints. Like the fact that I believe in natural rights. That’s because in fact I disagree with other natural rights advocates on their origin, and nature. Hell I even disagree with them on the nature of knowledge.

    How is any of this relevant to this conversation?

    A stereotype, a non-person, a racist, to be dismissed not on my reasoning but on your misunderstanding about how the world works and your stereotypes.

    Please enlighten me about how the world works. I sure will appreciate your insight; you speak like you know what you are talking about. Also, did I ever make a mistake of accusing you of racism? If yes, where?

    Poyndexter,

    What’s the matter? Is the righties’ resistance to fetishizing sexual deviancy as a rights issue of paramount importance bumming you out?

    If you think that treating gay people fairly is “fetishizing sexual deviancy,” then you are part of the problem.

  • Poyndexter

    “then you are part of the problem.”

    Right back at ya, slick.

  • ewan

    Poyndexter If you think you can make a cohenerent right-wing case, respecting values like personal freedom, and the rights of the individual to live their life as they choose, why you or anyone else should have a problem with gay people, then lets hear it.

  • Poyndexter

    “you or anyone else should have a problem with gay people”

    This already indicates your ideology-based lack of comprehension. It would take too long to explain “my problem”(your word, certainly not mine) and frankly I doubt it’d be worth the effort.

  • ewan

    So that’ll be a ‘no’ then.

    You are a troll – just spouting whatever you think will get a rise out of people, not articulating an actual argument.

  • Poyndexter

    “You are a troll”
    Way to misuse an already frequently abused adhominem retort.
    Thanks for eliminating any doubts about my reluctance to engage with you.