Wednesday, April 05, 2006

The Elements of Moonbat Style

I think I've now got a full picture of the template moonbats use to argue for oxymoronic marriage.

First, express befuddlement, as if the "wisdom" of your position should be self evident:

I'm perplexed over the continuing debate about a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage or any legal equivalent to it.

Then, try to fool everyone into thinking that your own personal experience not only matters, but is an accurate representation of fact:

I haven't noticed one single instance or mention of a case challenging the existing law that already limits marriage to "one man and one woman."

(You'll recall that I did a driveby on this letter the other day. I mention this because all these letters tend to sound alike. Letter can be found here.)

Reiterate insular personal experience as fact:

Come to think of it, I haven't noticed any mention of anyone wanting to marry more than one woman (polygamy) or their dog (bestiality)

...And then trot out the Bogoted Christian Right bete noir (ignoring the irony of the bigotry inherent therein):

...except by Christian extremists who want to...

Then completely misrepresent the motives of your bete noir:

...scare the heebie-jeebies out of the rest of us.

Make the gay population helpless victims:

What does concern me is the number of innocents who are getting caught in the cross-hairs of this battle.

Then assert that their mere presence is excuse enough for mangling a 200 year old law and centuries of tradition:

Like it or not, gay and lesbian families already exist; there are thousands of children with gay parents among us, and what message are we sending to them?

Ignore the existence of the Health Care Directive (or Power of Attorney):

It's OK for their parents to be in loving relationships, but not be able to gain visitation at the hospital if they are ill?

Throw in a strawman (what taxpayer-funded "services" does one receive with a marriage license anyway?):

It's OK for them to pay taxes, but don't let them have the same access to services that straights do?

Throw in some empty touchy-feely completely-detatched-from-reality nonsense:

It's OK for them to be them -- just don't let us see them?

Remind the reader of your eeeeeeeeevil bete noir, and throw in an inflamatory (and completely false) remark:

I understand the far right's need to stand up for their beliefs, but do they have to trample over the lives of so many others to do it?

Try to spell your name correctly:

E.B WHITEHEAD, MINNEAPOLIS.

However, this letter is slightly deficient in that it failed to incorporate a couple essential elements of style. We'll give it an "B". To earn an "A" this letter would have had to also include:

* An assertion that gay marriage is already a "right".

* That absurd canard that divorce somehow harms the institution of marriage more than completely decimating the institution by rewriting the law (or better yet: letting some judges do that).

* In a panic stricken tone, ask "Don't our legislators have anything better to do?" Then list a whole bunch of ways to raise someone else's taxes.

Hope you found this helpful.

No comments: