Wednesday, August 31, 2011

Dilbert Meets Dr. Turok, Son of Stone*

The liberal intolerance for intolerance has gotten out of hand this week, as Dr. Mike Adams reveals in another of his open letters, this time addressed to some guy at "Bank of Gay America."  It seems that Doctor ("of Ministry") Frank Turek, who conducts "High Impact" training in "Leadership, Sales, Customer Service... and other people-skill topics essential for business success," was all set to run BoA employees through a boot camp on office comity, when Pontius Pilate (played at this performance by the Human Resources Department) ordered he be affixed to the Cross of Political Correctitude with the nails of Multiculturalism, even though it specifically says in the Handbook that employees are not allowed to attach anything to the walls of their cubicles, including calendars, posters, photographs, comic strips, or martyred teambuilding consultants.
In late May of this year Dr. Turek was hired to present at a meeting of your Global Business Management & Analysis Team...The title of his presentation was called “Why Can’t You Be Normal Just Like Me?” The presentation helps participants adapt to diverse personalities to improve productivity and relationships—the essence of inclusion and diversity.
Three days before the event Dr. Turek was abruptly fired by an HR representative. Why? She explained that someone Googled his name and discovered that he had written Correct, Not Politically Correct: How Same-Sex Marriage Hurts Everyone.
Dr. Mike has a point.  Hiring Frank Turek to teach your employees tolerance and respect for diversity, and then firing him just because he wrote a book declaring some of your staff to be hateful, hell-bound sodomites is a little like returning the unused portion of your patent medicine to Professor Feather and demanding a refund because it doesn't contain as much cobra ichor as you'd been lead to believe.

The rest of Dr. Mike's column is even duller than usual, so I decided to go to the source, Doctor Minister Turek himself, and see what the Bank of America Global Business Management & Analysis Team is missing.
Who Are the Real Gay Bigots and Bullies
George Orwell said, “In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” When you tell the truth about homosexuality today, you can be sure that the central tools of deceit—name-calling and bullying—will be unleashed.
And when your enemies are unleashing deceit, you have no choice but to reach into your central tools box and pull out a totally credible transcript of a conversation we have no reason to doubt ever really occurred:
I recently was having a respectful conversation with a homosexual activist, but after I made a point he couldn’t answer he called me a “bigot.”
Most gay people I know have heard all the arguments against them, and activists are usually well-practiced at arguing their position, so that must have been one hell of a new and devastating point, Doctor.
I asked, “What’s your definition of bigotry?”

He said, “Fear and intolerance.”

I said, “The definition of bigotry is not ‘fear and intolerance.’ It’s making a judgment without knowing the facts.
Ah, so you threw the power of the dictionary at him. Well, it's true, there's no responding to that...unless you happen to have a copy of it yourself, I suppose.  For instance, it seems to me that "making a judgment without knowing the facts" is prejudice, while bigotry is better defined as "stubbornly clinging to an irrational hatred in defiance of the facts."  But then, I'm no expert in Customer Service.
I have written a book about the problems with same-sex marriage and the destructive medical consequences of homosexual behavior. So my convictions on those issues are based in fact not ‘bigotry.’ With all due respect, if anyone is engaged in bigotry it is you for judging my position as wrong without even knowing why I hold it.”
With all due respect, Doctor-Minister, Hitler wrote a book too.  Hey, so did I!  That means my opinions about Battlefield Earth are based in fact, not bigotry toward Scientologists, which makes me feel a lot better about that time I told the guy at the Stress Test table on Hollywood Boulevard to shove that E-Meter up his ass and see if he could Clear his colon.
He was also falsely equating my opposition to a behavior as prejudice toward people who engage in that behavior. That’s the central fallacy in virtually every argument for homosexuality—if you don’t agree with homosexual behavior, you are somehow bigoted against people who want to engage in that behavior. How does that follow?
I don't agree with folk dancing, but I don't pressure the Legislature to outlaw dirndls, or deny people their civil rights just because they've been known to schottische.
If conservatives and Christians are “bigots” for opposing homosexual behavior, then why aren’t homosexual activists bigots for opposing Christian behavior?
And if we are bigots for opposing same-sex marriage, then why aren’t homosexual activists bigots for opposing polygamous or incestuous marriage?
Maybe nobody informed the homosexuals that polygamy and incest are Christian behaviors.  Why don't you tell them?  I can't wait to see the look on their faces when they find out.
Everyone puts limits on marriage—if marriage had no definition it wouldn’t be anything. Recognizing that marriage is between a man and a woman is not bigotry, but common sense rooted in the biological facts of nature. That’s why the state recognizes marriage to begin with—not because two people love one another but because only heterosexual unions can procreate and best nurture the next generation.
The state recognizes contracts, which is what marriage is and always has been.  And you'll note that when women -- who were once excluded from the process -- were finally allowed to enter into contracts on their own -- thus changing the definition from "a binding legal agreement between two dudes" -- contracts did not suddenly cease to exist.
Everyone also puts limits on behaviors. But opposing behavior is not the same as opposing or “hating” people. In fact, to really love people, we often have to oppose what they do!
I -- I just realized...I love you, Frank.
But isn’t homosexuality like race? No. Race has nothing to do with behavior, but homosexuality is a behavior! Skin color affects no one, but destructive behavior affects many.
According to recent theological pronouncements, reach-arounds can cause earthquakes and hurricanes.  At least, if you're doing it right.
 Moreover, sexual behavior is always a choice, race never is. You’ll find many former homosexuals, but you’ll never find a former African-American. 
Except in Imitation of Life.
So if you don’t approve of a man because of his race, you are a bigot. But if you don’t approve of a man’s destructive behavior, you are wise. 
And if your definition of "destructive behavior" includes "an attempt by a self-appointed prophet to turn his private hatreds into public policy" and you disapprove of that -- go to the head of the class.
Second, while desires are not a choice, sexual behavior always is. So regardless of the source of sexual desires, people are certainly capable of controlling their sexual behavior. If you claim that they are not—that sexual behavior is somehow uncontrollable—then you have made the absurd contention that no one can be morally responsible for any sexual crime, including rape, incest, and pedophilia.
I'm not claiming that gay men cannot control their sexual behavior, Frank; I'm claiming that you can't control it.  You're not allowed.  You don't have the right.  In fact, given that you can't tell the difference between consensual relations and criminal behavior, I'm not sure you're even qualified to run your own sex life.

*Thanks to L'il Innocent for the title


Pope Incontinentius XIII said...

"...if marriage had no definition it wouldn’t be anything."

What if we just change the definition to "an intimate contract between two consenting adults"? It's still got a definition, even if it's changed. You know, the way we've changed the definition of marriage from the Old Testament, where it actually could be polygamous.

heydave said...

Just when you think the shit bag of "logical" orators of "wisdom" is too chock full for any more, you go ahead and find us another!

lacp said...

So whenever Dr. Frank encounters a hostile homosexual, he grabs his tool? That can't end well.

Jay B. said...

It reads better when you understand Frank is trying to win Logical Fallacy Bingo.

If conservatives and Christians are “bigots” for opposing homosexual behavior, then why aren’t homosexual activists bigots for opposing Christian behavior?

They might be, if they tried to outlaw churches! Lord knows I hate you assholes, but then I don't actively discriminate against your rights.

James Briggs Stratton "Doghouse" Riley said...

But isn’t homosexuality like race? No. Race has nothing to do with behavior

Y'know, Doc, I realize that we eradicated racism in this country too long ago for you to remember it (and many thanks, again, to all you white Southern evangelicals who made it possible), but the fact is that institutionalized racism was never about skin color, either, to hear the racists tell it, but the collection of behaviors--shiftlessness, promiscuity, lack of mental agility, inability to tell one's place, the tendency to ogle white women--which skin color just happened to predict with near 100% accuracy.

Li'l Innocent said...

Scott, thanks for the signal honor of including words uttered in one of my comments - even tho not actually thought of by me - in one of your TITLES! What a thrill! Those big blue letters!! Not to mention that neato artwork; I had forgotten that Turok was Native American, and that it was a Lost-World premise that put him in conflict with dinosaurs, not that he lived in the Triassic. Turns out the issue of Turok I saw in the dentist's office must have been one of the earliest ones, now probably worth umpty-ump American dollars.

Re Dr. Minister Turek's line of "reasoning" - does he actually expect human beings, of the same species as himself, to live lives of complete sexual privation in order to avoid being "opposed" by him and his pals? Even if he's purposely celibate himself, either because it suits him (as it does some; cf Sister Wendy, St. Francis, Nicola Tesla) or because of some mighty personal resolve, does he know so little of his fellow homo sapiens that he thinks that's a realistic goal?

StickIt said...

I'm not claiming that gay men cannot control their sexual behavior, Frank; I'm claiming that you can't control it.

Heh, good one!

I for one would not be sad if marriage truly had no definition and therefore went away -- for everyone. But it's still fun to watch you poke the wingnuts through the bars with a stick.

Scott said...

heydave: Sometimes you have to dig pretty deep into that close-out bin to find a bargain, but I'm happy to report that even in this economy, the supply of wingnuts far exceeds the demand.

Li'l: Thank you. I'd completely forgotten about Turok, and then, only a few days later, Doctor-Minister Turek suddenly appears. It's Kismet.

Stickit: I admit, I sometimes feel like a bipedal gorilla mistreating captured humans in the original Planet of the Apes, except none of these guys are mute (mores the pity), they're less sympathetic, and I don't want to see any of them in a rawhide loincloth.

Murfyn said...

Except in Imitation of Life.
Also see Pinky.
And I will add that, as a former closet-case who got over himself etc., gay people aren't nearly as scary as I pretended they were. Of course that is just my experience, your mileage may vary.

Bill S said...

So to sum up:
Assuming, based upon a person's race, that they lead dangerous destructive lives that are a threat to society, is bigoted.
Assuming, based upon a person's sexuality, that they lead dangerous, destructive lives that are a threat to society, is NOT bigoted.
Is that about right?

Bill S said...

Oh, and I love it when these assholes try to say they're motivated by love when they try lecture us on how "dangerous" our "behavious" is. Because, y'know, gay men a just a bunch of ignorant savages who need the guidance of heterosexuals, who are, after all, better informed about gay sex. And better qualified to judge the lives of gay people.

Brian Schlosser said...

Bill, it has been my experience that "concerned" heterosexuals, those "love the sinner, hate the sin" types, spend WAAAAAAAY more time thinking about Gay Sex (esp. Teh Butt Sechs) than the average gay guy does. Hmmmmm...

It reminds me of the way that anti-gay preachers are always talking about withstanding the "temptation" of gay sex. Uh... don't you have to WANT something in order to be tempted by it?

As for Herr Doktor Turek, I myself love the classic lumping of consensual sexual behavior in with rape, incest and molestation. I'm surprised he didn't bring up bestiality; maybe he didn't want to step on Rick Santorum's toes?

Bill S said...

Then's there's that crap about self control. Hey, if we DIDN'T have any, he'd have been punched in the face a long time ago.
But it's a bullshit argument anyway, because he doesn't hold heterosexuals and homosexuals to the same standard.
For heterosexuals, self-control is a matter of DELAYING sex until marriage.
But he doesn't believe gay people should have that option, so for us, self-control means GIVING UP sex forever. Anything except celibacy is a sign of weakness, of a lack of self-control.
So he holds gay people to a standard he would NEVER have to live up to himself. And then justifies this by equating homosexuality with different fors of sexual abuse. AND expects gay people to see that as a reasonable, definitely not bigoted belief. "You fags should just KNOW how disgusting you are, and conduct yourselves accodingly."
So isn't just a bigot, he's an asshole.

Brian said...

"If conservatives and Christians are “bigots” for opposing homosexual behavior, then why aren’t homosexual activists bigots for opposing Christian behavior?"
Just what IS "Christian behavior?" Which behaviors do homosexuals oppose? Praying? Believing in Jesus? Commercializing His birthday? Oh, wait, I think I figured it out. It is totally "Christian" to judge and condemn. You know, being a bigot. So, here we have "you're a bigot for opposing my bigotry." Astounding.

"The state recognizes contracts, which is what marriage is and always has been. And you'll note that when women -- who were once excluded from the process -- were finally allowed to enter into contracts on their own -- thus changing the definition from "a binding legal agreement between two dudes" -- contracts did not suddenly cease to exist." - F'outstanding. I'm SO stealing that nugget of brilliance.

Scott said...

Don't think of it as stealing -- we're all Kenyan socialists here -- think of it as Spread the Wealth Around.

Slywy said...

I'm mostly disappointed you don't agree with folk dancing. Bigot.

Cole said...

And, I love the way fucking racists try to pretend that race is only about skin if they have forgotten how they used to define "negroes" by how many ancestors of the black persuasion lurked in the woodpile when you couldn't tell one simply by looking at them. All those "coloreds" who looked as white as regular Murkins and had to hide their heritage and "pass" to get ahead in society--never happened apparently.