Annals of the blisteringly stupid

OK, really, I don't want to make this blog All Gay, All the Time. Seriously. But over at The Dish, Andrew (who still doesn't know we're on a first-name basis) highlighted a "Dissent of the Day" so epically stupid I just really had to say something.


Geez, you’re a princess. Gay people account for what? 9% of the population? That much? Heterosexual sex is the ability to replicate consciousness. All wonders of the universe are created by the union of sperm and egg. The sperm and the egg have created everything.

I don’t feel that homosexuality is a choice. Why would anyone choose it? I feel that homosexuality is unfortunate, that you drew the short straw. Your love can never reproduce a universe. It can only ever be a ghostly comparison of heterosexual love. Be a conservative, recognize your limitations. Accept your cross, and bear it with dignity.

So, I don't know the genius that came up with this, but my only sincere reaction is -- bah, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha. Wheeeeee!!!! That is some Grade A stupid right there.

How about this, Einstein? The universe is wholly indifferent to you, your sperm or your eggs. Really. The Andromeda Galaxy is ignorant of your procreative efforts. In a hundred years, when you are dead and the products of your transcendent sexual congresses are (at best) aged and infirm (or dead themselves), the Horsehead Nebula will still be lurking darkly somewhere in Orion. Your coital endeavors make no more difference to the universe than mine, numbnuts, and your grandiose pronouncements make me laugh.

On the other hand, during our fleeting, evanescent lives, we have a brief chance to be good to one another. We can choose to create the best collective reality possible, or we can pat ourselves on the back for how awesome we are when we get it on and tell other people to go hang. Either way, the universe doesn't care. But maybe, if we choose to fight for the best and most just world we can get, this little teeny backwater of a planet will be a wee bit better for those of us who inhabit it.

Fighting for marriage equality makes our eensy, weensy corner of the universe a bit better for some of us. But, no matter how friskily you copulate on our little hunk of rock, your love is no more astronomically significant than mine.


  1. To quote Judge Judy, "Anyone past puberty can have children." The ability to reproduce is no great accomplishment--raising decent human beings is much worthier. What Andrew says is so inane, it almost defies comment.


  2. Really? Each person is a universe? The writer clearly has not met the people working the register at our local CVS.

    And to all the infertile people of the world: stop your damn loving, already! Older couples, please, do yourselves a favor and divorce. Don't you know the ONLY point of love is children? Stop your silly seeking of solace, support, conversation, information in companionship!

    If consciousness really is what is so wonderful, (I mean, sperms and eggs are interesting and all, but I gather what's so great about them is that when they get together, they make a person) and gay people are conscious...well, isn't that all they need?

  3. If sperm-sperm or egg-egg is our only cross to bear, why not have the same rights? In fact, I would vote for that child-free and/or gay and/or infertile couples should get massive benefits in a society that has overpopulated and overused resources.
    If homosexual love so much less than heterosexual love, why refuse it the same rights? Should be an easy "here you go, buddy. Patronizing is easy for me" kind of gift, no?
    And 9% of the population is higher than a whole lot of other groups who get their rights, so why deny such a large group their right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. It doesn't hurt anybody, it's private (as much as any relationship is private), so why, in his argument, does he give it another thought? Hand over the rights and let us go on our way, buddy.
    Also, don't look now, Dan, but the argument about humans being Universally inconsequential crawls right up the ass of believers, and next you'll be saying it doesn't matter to the Universe which football team wins or which groups is the next contestant on "our small minds are threatened, let's demonize people who are't doing anything at all to hurt us".

  4. Childless couples should pay extra, NTW. Our children are the ones who will grow your food, run power plants to keep you warm and in the light, and cure your ills when you retire. We brought them up, and we footed the bill to educate, house, and feed the workers you will depend upon for your life's needs. All you do is benefit from our work.

    But hey, if you really, seriously are concerned about using Mama Nature's resources, take yourself out of the game. Then you won't be creating CO2, extracting N from the soil, and in general pushing the Universe towards a faster heat death.

  5. I am surprised you would waste your words on such a numbnut.

  6. Oh, Dan. Indignation is such an uninteresting emotion.

  7. Dan, PLEASE.....PLEASE believe me when I say, I am almost holding my emotions in check by not responding to GJ in the manner I am most accustomed to. If he posts another absolutely stupid horrid insipid insane ridiculous comment, I may not be able to exersize self-control any longer. League of Gentleman be damned, I will cut loose with a tirade of four, five and six letter words that will make even the most callus of individuals shirk from their computer and head for a hiding place beneath their kitchen sink. I will make Charo and Charo's use of less than proper language look like Mr. Roberts on a good day! It will be a tirade so bad I will be forced to take an anger managent course from Louis Black. This guy is a waste of our planets depleting oxygen, not to mention his ignorance of tax laws, we do pay a lot more taxes and use far less services than this piece of garbage. A shame that the sperm that created him was not flushed down a toilet.

  8. UJ, I have a suggestion for you that might help lower your BP and increase people's perception of your IQ.

    Here it is: rather than vent your spleen in a profanity-laced hissy fit, why don't you rationally defend your ideas! Use logic, not profanity. Engage your opponent's ideas rather than reflexively spout ad hominem. Sure, it takes more effort and self-control, but the results are worth it. Try it sometime.

  9. John, you cannot possibly believe an argument as patently absurd as the one you've laid out above. Surely you are making a jest. (In which case, very droll.) Perhaps you are being provocative for its own sake. Seriously.

    If you actually believe this, please clarify, and I'll take the time to point out the numerous holes in this ridiculous proposition.

  10. I think my argument is just as valid as the "child-free get extra goodies coz' they don't burden the environment" proposed by NTW. 8^)

    Nonetheless, it *is* true that when you and I are retired, it will be the children of today who will be growing our food, providing our medical services, and running our infrastructure. We'll be living off their productive efforts, just as our elders depend on us for their needs. If you think this is incorrect, I'd love to hear why.

  11. Oopsie, left out a sentence... right before the final sentence, insert

    "Therefore, responsible parenthood is the most important contribution we can make to the future of the human race and our own well-being."

    The nice thing about childlessness advocates is that they are ignorant of Darwin. 8^)

  12. Well, of course we as a society depend upon the ongoing regeneration of the population to sustain us. We should do our best to foster good parenting, maintain good schools, assure quality healthcare and nutrition, etc.

    It does not follow in any logical way that same-gender couples should have to pay more to get married. If you'd like to defend that proposition, let me know.

  13. No, no, no. I didn't mean to even *imply* that SSM should cost more, although I can see how you could read that in to what I wrote. I was remarking on the idea that couples with children, and presumably that would include SS couples with children such as you and your partner, ought to pay extra to fund the "massive benefits" for childless couples as suggested by NTW.

    I am happy to defend the proposition that parents raising children is a positive social good, despite what econutters and warmenistas claim.