Hey gay rights militants: your fascism is showing

Matt Walsh writes:

Dear gay rights militants, dear progressive tyrants, dear liberal fascists I see we're thoughtful about the words we use, dear haters of free speech, dear crusaders for ideological conformity and calling someone who disagrees with you a fascist = respecter of ideological diversity?, dear left wing bullies:

You will lose.

I know you’ve got legions of sycophants kowtowing to you these days, and the rest you’ve set out to destroy — but you will lose.

So, you’ve tracked another dissident and skinned him alive. You’ve made an example of Brendan Eich, and now you dance joyously around his disemboweled carcass. You have his head on a spike, and you consider this a conquest in your eternal crusade to eradicate diversity and punish differing opinions. Actually, the people in question just stopped supporting something that they felt was socially damaging. How would you react if you found out the CEO of some company had donated lots of money for abortions? Would you continue to work for or patronize that company? Would you be wary of "punishing differing opinions"? You launched your millionth campaign of intimidation, and now another good man what do you even know about him, aside from his support for prop 8? has been dragged through the mud, to the sounds of taunting and jeering and death threats.

You found out that the CEO of Mozilla gave a few dollars only a few dollars, Matt? to support a pro-traditional marriage ballot measure several years ago, and you proceeded to publicly tar and feather him until he was forced to ‘resign’ in disgrace.

You again chose to forgo debate, in favor of coercion and bullying. Once again, this had nothing to do with debating an issue. It had to do with material support with real consequences for real people. And the "liberal fascists" did not bully or coerce; they simply stopped working for the company, or using its product, because some of the profit was being used to fund what was, in their view, a harmful social agenda. I will remind you again of how you might react if the issue were abortion, and not marriage.

You again attempted to end the ‘gay rights’ argument by defrocking your opponent. See above.

Hey, good for you.

Enjoy the spoils of your cowardice.

It won’t last.

You will still lose.

Don’t you people read? Haven’t you learned anything from history? ‘Advancements’ earned through tyranny never endure. Exactly how does exercising one's right to not work for a particular company, or not use a particular internet browser, equate to tyranny? You've got some 'splaining to do. You can only win a debate see above by suffocating your opposition for so long. Your strategy is doomed for failure, because it has always failed.  (Just ignore all the states that now recognize same sex marriage...)

In the name of ‘fighting for the freedom to love,’ you’ve utilized hate. Once again, how does a decision about where to work or what browser to use equal "hate"? For the sake of ‘tolerance,’ you’ve wielded bigotry. See previous question. In order to push ‘diversity,’ you’ve been dogmatic. See previous question.

You are everything you accuse your opponents of being, and you stand for all the evil things that you claim they champion.

You are exposed. Gasp! Oh no! We see you for what you are: a force of destruction and division.

You showed your hand, and now you’ll lose the game.

It’s inevitable.

Marriage has, had, and always will have, by definition, a certain character and purpose not true; a character and purpose centered around, above all things, the family.  Not true. Marriage is the foundation through which a thriving and lasting civilization sees to the propagation of itself. Human beings can only reproduce by means of ‘heterosexuality,’ actually, no human being can reproduce by means of "heterosexuality"; humans reproduce by means of fertilization (sex, in vitro, etc.) and maternal biological processes and this reality sets the ‘heterosexual’ union apart. Marriage is meant to be the context in which this reproduction occurs.  Which is why infertile couples cannot get married... oh wait.

 

Time for an anthropology/history lesson. The "definition of marriage" has varied considerably in different times and locations - and even more so, the forms that marriage takes. An anthropologist will be quick to point out the that the most common functions of marriage are economic: determining the circulation of resources, lines of inheritance (of material goods), and the provisioning of mutual aid. In many cases, marriage also serves to cement relationships among different tribal/ethnic subgroups (especially among higher social classes). Consequently, in introductory anthropology classes, marriage/kinship is often taught in tandem with economics and exchange. 

In fact, our concept of marriage (based on romantic attraction and love shared by two people) is relatively anomalous in the context of human history (as nice as I think it is), and the "ideal family" to which you refer (biological mom, biological dad, kids) is not even the only significant familial structure today, let alone in all of human history. The attempt to define marriage in terms of reproduction is both a clumsily-contrived ad hoc strategy for delegitimizing marriage equality, as well as an outgrowth of modernity's penchant to use evolutionary biology as a template for every social phenomenon. And need I remind you that the eugenics movement is a product of the same mindset? As it turns out, the intellectual discourse that gave birth to contemporary ideas about homo- and heterosexuality, defining both in relation to the necessity for reproduction, was simultaneously concerned with eugenics, particularly the promotion of White reproduction. Don't believe me? Take a look at some of the writing from that period (late 19th century to early 20th).

Marriage is many things that is the first accurate thing you have said about marriage, but it is also this. And ‘this’ can never be removed from it, no matter the direction of the political winds, or the motion of the shifting sands of public opinion. Except for, if you look at history, and anthropology, and current social realities.

Marriage and the family are dimensions of the same whole. They cannot be detached from one another. They, as a whole, as an institution, can only be weakened — not erased or redefined.  I see. So then I guess we should have never outlawed polygamy if we can't "redefine" marriage... and if we are to stick to the Roman roots of the word "family" we should have slaves (and of course boy-lovers for the male heads of household). Why stop there, though? We should maintain the Biblical institution of marriage, wherein an unmarried man should be expected to marry his brother's widow, if the circumstance arises. And so the campaign to protect and strengthen the institution was and is designed to do just that. It was never about ‘legislating love’ or imposing intolerance or ‘discriminating against gay people,’ or any other silly bumper sticker platitude. This definition of marriage was proposed when gay people wanted to get married... so how is not about discriminating against gay people?

You want to be free to love? You are. You always have been. No, it's not about being "free to love." It's about having the same legal protections, economic benefits, and social rights (e.g. visiting your spouse in the hospital, forming a legal family) that other couples enjoy.

Heterosexuals don’t claim to monopolize love not about love, see above; only reproduction. Me, I love in many ways and in many directions. I love my wife, yes, and I also love my parents, and my country, and football, and hamburgers. These are all different kinds and degrees of love, yet still love. And Adam happens to love Steve in the same way that you love your wife, not the way you love hamburgers or football.

But, alas, only one of these loves can (or should) but does not always, even in the case of straight couples result in the creation of a biological family. Thus, this love carries with it a certain distinction and a certain responsibility.  Ok, great. Then Adam and Steve will find a surrogate, use their own sperm, and have a biological family. So they can get married then?

Bigotry? There is nothing bigoted about it. Except for, it's the exact definition of bigotry. This is mere science.  Oh man, I must have missed the science class where we talked about marriage. You see, bigotry only enters into the conversation when you try to destroy a man’s life just for participating in the conversation. So, by "destroying a man's life" you clearly do not mean "thwarting his marriage" (because then one could argue that Eich destroyed many men's lives) and by "just by participating in the conversation" you mean "funding a cause that had significant legal, economic, and personal consequences for lots of people."  Also.. you should really look up the definition of the word bigoted.

You are the agents of bigotry, my friends. You. You are what you say we are.  I think, if you looked up the word bigoted, stopped unintentionally or deliberately misconstruing the circumstances of the Eich situation, and understood what the supporters of marriage equality are advocating for, that might clear up some of the confusion.

I don’t know much about Brendan Eich but I thought you just dubbed him a "good man"?, and neither do you. I know that he is a revolutionary mind in his field and he became the CEO of Mozilla because of his professional merits. You know that? On what basis? That’s all the information I would have ever seen as relevant or important. But none of that matters to you. You decided to cast all of that aside because you took a peek at the names of Prop 8 donors — names that were only publicized in order to punish and shame those who supported the measure — and determined that everyone listed must be punished. So once again, if someone becomes a CEO of a company based on professional merits and happens to fund a lot of abortions... the only thing that would matter to you would be his professional qualifications? 

You fancy yourselves the ideological descendants of civil rights pioneers, but these tactics put you in the same vein as book burners and Puritan witch hunters.  What the... HAHAHAHAHAHA. Oh, so funny. When your story is ultimately told, it’ll read more like The Crucible than the Autobiography of Martin Luther King, Jr. Yes, boycotting a company is much more similar to burning and drowning innocent people than, say, the Montgomery Bus Boycott.

Are you really keeping a straight face when you write this stuff, Matt? Don't you think such obviously insane comparisons undermine your argument?

And that’s why you’ll lose.

You might have fooled society forever if you’d just kept singing about love and kindness, and never started bombarding Christians with your bitter hate and hostility.  Someone decides not to work for or patronize a company that financially supports a cause they are opposed to, and you interpret that as hate and hostility? A bit touchy, no? You might have gained some lasting ground if you hoisted your banner of free love, and never used it to diminish free speech. I know this is getting redundant, but deciding not to use a certain web browser diminishes free speech... how?  By "free speech" do you mean: you get to say whatever you want without ever having to encounter or listen to people who disagree with you?

But the proverbial cat is out of the bag. You’ve been made.

Because of your own behavior, when people like myself tell the world about the vicious death wishes and vulgar hate mail we receive from your kind on a DAILY basis, everyone will believe us. I could believe you, but that's because you post controversial things on the internet - the realm where mentally unstable people have free reign to communicate with lots of people. I have seen Youtube comments. I'll believe you get some crazy mail. However, I would never characterize an entire group of people (liberal, conservative, whatever) based on comments I see on the internet.  It’s no secret anymore. Without question and without exaggeration, the ‘gay rights movement’ is the angriest, most ruthless, most controlling, most intolerant of all the ideological enterprises in the country. Unsubstantiated, unsubstantiated, unsubstantiated. Now, everyone knows it.

So you’ll lose. People are starting to see that you are the pigs on this Animal Farm, and the equality of which you preach is a very unequal equality indeed. Haha. How is this issue even remotely relevant to Animal Farm? How is allowing gay couples to marry an "unequal equality" in the Animal Farm sense? (Do you even think about what you're saying?) 

Let other conservatives write the ‘woe is me’ posts. In truth, woe is you. One way or another.

You’ll lose. You’ll lose for these reasons, and this:

With each passing day, it gets harder and harder for you to control the conversation. They're not trying to control the conversation. Once again, this is not about conversation. And obviously, no one is stopping you.

Eich’s greatest contribution to combating gay rights militants didn’t come in the form of a paltry donation to Prop 8 — it came through his work developing the medium that makes censorship nearly impossible. I’m not saying that was his motivation, but it’s the result. You can boycott Reality TV shows and fast food restaurants all you want, but you can’t shutdown the internet.

For all its downside, the internet still gives voice to people who would be otherwise silenced by oppressors like yourselves. Take yours truly, for example. I’m just one dude — insignificant and unimportant — but there are many like me. I’m not employed by any major corporation. I’m not employed at all, in fact. You can’t get me fired; I work for myself.

 

Yes, freedom is so wonderful. And thank goodness the internet gives people a voice. Unless, of course, you stage a boycott or express an opinion that runs counter to Matt Walsh's beliefs, in which case you are a fascist, tyrant, bigot, witch-hunter, dictator.

You can’t muzzle me, or anyone else out here in the wild wilderness of cyberspace. You can keep sending us mean emails and telling us to kill ourselves (thanks for the helpful suggestion!), but that only emboldens us.

In the meantime, in honor of Mozilla and the gay rights fascists, I’ve talked with my wife and we’ve decided to donate a portion of our monthly ad revenue to the fight to protect the sanctity of life and marriage. So thank you for reading this — you are directly contributing to the ‘anti-gay rights’ cause!  I'm sure that is tons of money and I'm really scared.

(If you hadn't noticed, this is mostly in the hands of the courts now, so good luck with your anti-gay rights cause.)

See, you can’t win.

Victimize one guy and you simply succeed in creating a thousand others who are sufficiently fed up with your garbage.

You still lose.

The truth prevails.

Always.

Regards,

Matt Walsh