(CONTENT WARNING: Mature language) I’m an advocate for gay marriages for a straightforward reason: I’ve known gay men and lesbians my whole life and I’ve always encouraged them to pursue the same monogamous lifestyle choices as my heterosexual friends. By every objective measure, aside from any religious convictions on the subject, the promiscuous lifestyle is destructive. Humans are happier when they focus on finding one human being to love exclusively above all others.
How governments choose to recognize these unions and what label gets put on them in legal speak has always been a question I’ve regarded as open to reasonable discussion. America’s founding fathers planned the country to accommodate for questions like this - marriage is an issue that’s always been relegated to the states, not the federal government. So when I first became politically active more than a decade ago I tended to agree more with writers like Jonathan Rauch who advocated for a gradual, state-by-state approach rather than aiming for legal battles that would end in the Supreme Court.
But those looking for a cause they could use to wage political warfare AND RAISE MONEY had different ideas and an alternative strategy.
And now the progressive justices appointed to the court have just imagined some baloney legal interpretation to explain how the Constitution can mean what they want it to mean. Lewis Carroll is an underrated figure as a political and cultural commentator. I’ll explore his books more in the coming months and employ more quotes from him in my discussions and exchanges with Rebel commenters and Megaphone colleagues. This is among the most useful:
To understand better the difference of mentality, between authentic gay marriage supporters and the LIARS who are just using it as a cynical tool to further a political agenda, I submit this dialogue I had last week on another post here at Rebel Media’s Megaphone.
One of the Rebel’s regular progressive commenter trolls showed up to hurl profanities and disagreements. I decided to take the opportunity to weave some straw into gold. Below you’ll find part of our dialogue, interspersed with tips that I offer my Canadian conservative friends as they pursue their own ideological debates and skirmishes...
American New Media Political War Tip #1: All you need to do is to provoke your opponent to state what they believe. Their ideas are self-refuting when admitted openly.
JIMMY DA SILVA: If I didn’t know that The Rebel was Canadian – I would assume that this was some conservative website from Texas, because that is how many people who post here come across. Many are racist, homophobic, bigoted and hateful – and some have admitted it. That is the kind of conservative that The Rebel attracts, which explains why nobody really gives a fuck about this place beyond a tiny batshit crazy conservative demographic that would love nothing more for Canada to be like Texas.
DAVID M. SWINDLE: Jimmy, please name names. Who are the actual racists on The Rebel who have “admitted it”? And do you believe that I too as an American conservative who strongly supports The Rebel am therefore racist, homophobic, bigoted, and hateful?
JIMMY DA SILVA: David - I don’t know if you are racist, homophobic, bigoted and hateful – we haven’t spoken enough. As an American conservative, how do you feel about the change in gay marriage – which again, was no big in Canada 10 years ago?
American New Media Political War Tip #2: Focus on individual words that give away your opponent's flawed ideological system. In this case: “FEEL”.
DAVID M. SWINDLE: I have been a supporter of gay marriage for more than 10 years, for my entire active, adult, political life -longer than Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton and most mainstream Democrats. Many of my friends and the writers I work with are gay or lesbian. For years I’ve argued that the verses in the Bible that some Christians use as blanket condemnations for all homosexual acts actually only refers to ancient Pagan sex practices and have little to do with most gay people today.
But I never wanted 5 Supreme Court justices to just imagine that the Constitution requires all 50 states to recognize the gay marriages recognized from state to state.
Note the way you frame your question to me: " how do you feel about the change in gay marriage" as in FEEL. What should it matter how I FEEL? Shouldn’t it be more important how I think or how I reason? How do you think someone should come to their political positions, morals, and ethical values, based on just what FEELS right to them? Or should they suspend their emotional impulses and think rationally and logically in the light of history’s lessons? Reason or Emotion, both are needed but one needs to be in the driver’s seat, both can’t be driving the car.
JIMMY DA SILVA: David - First of all – Obama supported gay marriage in 1996. Obama lied in 2008, because you have to if you want a political career in America. I am sure Hillary was the same way – they always supported gay marriage, but it was political suicide to state that at the time. Hell I wouldn’t be surprised if Obama was an atheist. If you want to be electable – you have to play the game and everyone lies. I am sure there are Republicans that support gay marriage as well – but they won’t tell anyone that. [...]
American New Media Political War Tip #3: Focus on just the key part that matters the most in your opponent’s response. I’m excerpting just the first paragraph here -- he wasted his time with another 11 paragraphs regurgitating the stereotypical argument justifying the Supreme Court approach.
DAVID M. SWINDLE: I agree with you that Obama is actually an atheist — and that he just went to Rev. Wright’s racist “church” for show and the far left political connections. There’s really no point in us engaging in dialogue any further since you have stated so clearly that you are willing to lie in order to advance your deceptive atheist politicians. You think lying is moral and necessary to get elected. I do not. End of discussion. I don’t dialogue with people who defend such values. It’s a waste of time.
JIMMY DA SILVA: David - Well then you are living in a fantasy land and are completely fucking delusional – because if you want a career in politics in America, you have to lie and that applies to both the right and the left, since both sides lie to become electable.
American New Media Political War Tip #4: Be cognizant that American progressive activists have been schooled for the last 40 years on the works of Saul Alinsky who taught in his Rules for Radicals the deliberate technique of polarizing people into Us Vs. Them categories.
DAVID M. SWINDLE: You’ve bought the lie that there are only 2 sides and both have to play by the same imaginary “rules.” Not everyone buys this lie like you have. And I have a degree in political science and have studied enough campaigns to know that all politicians do not need to hide their true positions and intents to get elected. That’s just one lie that you’ve told to yourself to justify your own bad behavior and now are demanding everyone else believe too. I won’t live down to your low standards of ethics and morality.
JIMMY DA SILVA: David - It’s amazing that with your education – you are still incredibly naïve and delusional as to how things work in American politics. I never that I approve of the lying, but I realize that if you want a career in politics in America, you have to lie.
Do you really think if one of the Republicans running for President came out and said that he supports gay marriage – that he would still have chance to become President? I know that there are Republicans that support gay marriage and gay rights – but they say the exact opposite politically. And in some instances, those Republican men have been caught sexually with other men. Obviously hypocrites. [...]
Apparently you don’t understand that in many ways, politics is a game and the game needs to be played if you want to win, which is why every politician does exactly that despite what you think about ethics and morality. Politics is the wrong profession for that, when everyone is bought and paid for.
American New Media Political War Tip #5: Anticipate the arguments and positions that your opponent expects and then instead go ridiculously hard in the opposite direction so they are thrown off and don’t know how to respond to you.
DAVID M. SWINDLE: Yes. A younger, hawkish, fiscally conservative, socially moderate Republican would be able to beat Hillary in 2016. And such a candidate will likely emerge for 2020 as more gay-friendly libertarian-conservative Millennials and Xers age. There are many issues Americans care more about than gay marriage when picking a president.
“Politics is the wrong profession for that, when everyone is bought and paid for.”
You’re thinking of prostitution, not political activism. They’re not the same thing, but if you want to be the Democratic Party’s whore then it’s not like there’s anything I can do to stop you…
Ready for an intellectual, spiritual palate cleanser after all that bitterness? See my friend Chris Queen’s "An Open Letter to Pretty Much Everybody About the Marriage Debate.”
Follow The Megaphone on Twitter.
JOIN TheRebel.media for more news and commentary you won’t find anywhere else.