Chicken Soup For The Wingnut Soul

Lest they be confused about the basis of their impassioned arguments against civil rights, "Focus On The Family" will offer dvds to better educate people about the opinions they are supposed to have and actually tell them why they should have them. I think this move should be applauded, because much as I love blind obedience I think the attention to detail is representative of the new level of service we are coming to expect from our theocons. I'm thinking that a wingnut kiosk may be coming to a mall near you! Or... "Hatemongering for XBOX 360!". It seems that in today's changing world, its insufficient to use such time honored quips as "Cos God don't like it!" or "Cos its Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" to influence those who advocate..well, wingnutterings.
Here at the Noose, we're not sure why the simple threat of climate spite isn't enough- but in the interests of fairness, let's look at why the dvd on gay marriage talking points is so compelling: "...we've really overcome a lot of those arguments because of repetition. And this is an effort to put arguments in the same-sex marriage debate in people's hands so they can just know them."(continued)

Further:
"We want people to understand that there are good, rational reasons for opposing same-sex marriage. It's not just that homosexuals are "yucky" or that "it's just a bad idea." There are very reasonable explanations for why this just doesn't stack up. And we offer those. And we offer them in such a way that reasonable people can hear them and say, "You know what, that makes perfect sense."


So it's come down to this, has it? Instructional dvd's to help people substantiate and justify positions that they have trouble defending on the merits of their own mental processes? Now call me an issue purist, but I think the burden of substantiating one's strongly held convictions rests with an individual. I can wholeheartedly appreciate that there are unknowns, and certain things we believe based on a number of reasons. We may choose to believe for example that a black cat is bad luck despite the lack of empirical evidence. That is our choice to buy into it, it does not infringe on others to believe it. The bar can be set pretty low on matters that just make us look like dumbasses.

But we are not talking about issues that do not impact the rights or liberties of others. We are talking about positions held by people who seek to limit the rights of others and in this blogger's humble view, they might at least go through the motions toward a basic understanding as to WHY they feel so strongly that other people should be denied something. What do you think?

This is the point where 'agreeing to disagree' becomes problematic. And why it is not a matter of simple debate. We are talking about people ASSISTING others with supporting positions given to them by another. A 'how to' guide for defending what people apparently don't have a very solid foundation in understanding.

Being fed an entree, then being told how to digest it. And ultimately, how to...never mind.

For Pete's sake, take the trouble to understand your hatred, and the basis, is that asking too much? Please, by all means take advantage of your dvd's and learn some talking points because we're tired of your brick wall. Ultimately, you cannot handle that we have a Constitution that supposedly makes it unlawful to decide matters of policy based on theocentric 'values'. Even if I myself were to agree, I would never concede that it has a place in law. To concede that contradicts what we purport to stand for, and I think we need to offer dvd's on the First Amendment!