Another Old Friend...

Guess what, guys? I heard from our old friend, William “The Autopsychic” Johnson yesterday!

And apparently he’s feeling butt-hurt about the new comment settings, claiming some civil rights violation, or something… Well, here... I’ll post his email (just as I told him I would) and then put my response below it:

Re: Freedom of Speech Denied ... Expectedly

Eddie,

I see you are restricting your site to only those who give opinions that equal your own. I would expect nothing less from someone who is such a heterophobic and hater. Otherwise you would have let me post this under my previously allowed web site name. Way to support freedom of speech ... as long as it agrees with your own tweaked ideals.

my response to your hateful article:

"Did you realize that in 29 States it remaines(SIC) perfectly legal to fire someone for no other reason that(SIC) being Gay? Add another 5 where it's legal to fire someone for being Transgenered (SIC)."
Well, let's test your hypocrisy on sexual perversions: do you think it should be legal to fire someone for being a polygamist? Oh? You don't? But, yet you don't support that deviated lifestyle choice, do you? Well, I don't support the gay lifestyle choice and I don't think you should be fired for being gay either, but that isn't what the SC decided on, is it? You seem to be comparing apples to oranges in your rant about rights you think gays should get that heteros don't have. Because I don't think I've seen anything that gives marriage "rights" to heterosexuals, yet you demand those "rights" for gays and other sexual deviances (except polygamy). But, not to worry, though. Knowing you are a "progressive" fully explains the hypocrisy and hatred you hold towards others.

I think all the reasons you support and defend gay equality have been fully explained in relation to their equal standings of being perverted lifestyle CHOICES. When you can defend your heterophobia as a good thing and then refer to homophobia as a bad thing, you are being the hypocrite that all liberals are.

BTW, you DO know that if the SC would actually decide according to LAW and not their FEELINGS then the decision would NOT have gone the way you think it should have. But that's just the hypocrisy of your phobias at work there.

William

Wow. What a fucking drama queen, huh?

William: You flatter yourself. I have absolutely nothing to fear from you posting your opinion here. There has yet to be a single instance in which I’ve been worried that any remotely sensible person will read what I’ve posted, read what you’ve posted and then side with you. With you (and Anonymous, assuming that wasn’t also you) representing the voices of conservatism here, you (two?) have only ever made my job easier. So it is in keeping with both my principles AND my self-interest that your opinion is welcome here.

Now… You mentioned hypocrisy in your email. I’ll get the issue at hand in a moment, but I find it ironic that you would go that route in considering how the last time I heard from you, you accused me of “whining” and yet here I haven’t from you in months (almost a year?) and yet you start in with the melodrama from line one! Just sayin’ man, get over yourself. We’re just talking here.

And now to the issue at hand: Polygamy.

Um… I hate to burst your bubble and pretty much destroy your hypocrisy argument, but I have always maintained that I’m OK with anything going on between consenting adults, and YES, that included plural marriage. Now I’m going to cut off several lines of argument right up front...

I don’t want ANYONE to tell me about how this leads to MINORS being COERCED into these arrangements. The words “CONSENTING ADULTS” are 100% incompatible with “COERCED MINORS.” The OPPOSITE, in fact. I'm opposed to that which is COERSION, and NOT opposed to that which ISN'T. It's not that hard! Also, Will, you needn't bother going next to Bestiality, because “Consenting Adults” implies that they are HUMAN. In fact… CONSENT, in a LEGAL SENSE, already implies not only humanity, but ADULTS as well. Under most tenant of business and contract law, minors are not able to GIVE consent (hence statutory rape laws) and can withdraw it after the fact regardless (hence the need for an adult to co-sign most contracts signed by a minor.) And animals, obviously, cannot give consent in any legal sense, nor enter into contracts. So… Don’t be an idiot.

The only thing… THE. ONLY. THING… I would restrict with regards to plural marriage is the number of spouses (SPOUSES, not CHILDREN) that can be claimed as dependants for tax purposes. I’d keep that at ONE. Not to discriminate, but only to prevent some jackass from abusing the loophole and have 67 wives for “tax purposes.” And I would certainly be willing to entertain alternatves, if that seems "oppressive" to you. Aside for that? I have no problem with Polygamy. It’s not MY THING… ONE wife, darling though she may be, is MORE THAN ENOUGH for me on most days. I need another one like I need a case of bleeding hemorrhoids. But neither I nor anyone else is being harmed by the people involved, just as none are with same-sex marriage, and I see no “crime” being committed here. Neither is my thing, but I see no reason to prevent it.

It’s called, “F-R-E-E-D-O-M.” Maybe you’ve heard of it?

Also, you called me “heterophobic.” (Which, according to spell-check, isn’t even a word!) That’s a really odd accusation to make against a married man, with two children. None of what I support takes ANY of your rights or legal protections away, and none of what I support gives anything to anyone beyond EQUAL TREATMENT UNDER THE LAW. And that’s something this IS at the heart and soul of America, our Constitution, and everything we stand for and the Supreme Court recognized that and ruled accordingly. Also, I’m not sure if you know how things work in this country, but the SCOTUS is under no obligation to uphold legislation passed by Congress, State Governments or Popular Referendum. Their raison deter is to judge the Constitutionality of these very laws! They’re one of those CHECKS AND BALANCES that maybe you’ve heard of? And while I have personally disagreed with many of the decisions made by the Rehnquist and Roberts court, as is both our perrogotives, I would never be so idiotic as to suggest that it was beyond their authority to MAKE those rulings! (As you seem to have done.)

The differecne between YOU and ME is that I want the SAME rights for EVERYONE. You don't. That doesn't make either of us a hypocrite, in and of itself. It just makes you an asshole.
And with regards to being my “heterophobic…” (which, according to spell-checker, isn't even a WORD!) Dude, seriously, I LOVE heterosexuality! Especially the part abpout having SEX WITH WOMEN. Aside from a slight preference for Lesbian over Strait pornography, I don’t see where you get the idea that I am in any way AGAINST heterosexuality. Even in THAT case, it is only because the sight of HUGE COCKS doesn’t really DO anything for me. And hey: I don’t judge… If YOU’RE really into BIG DICKS? That’s OK. It’s just not my thing. But to each their own.

At this point, there’s not really anywhere for you to go from here. (So watch: You’ll probably change the subject.) You could have wasted a lot less of both our time if you bothered to google “polygamy” in the search box on the left. You’d have seen that I’ve argued my position before. But then… Research never HAS been your strong suit. Now I’m going to switch gears here a little bit, because I originally responded to William via email, explaining why I changed the comment settings, and promising to post his email and respond to it publicly. (As I have now done.) Here is the response I received from him:

I've got a google account, and it didn't work. I think you don't intend to allow opposing opinions. It has been made apparent throughout. You are hateful towards anyone who isn't fully in agreement with your "opinion", and to say you would allow it is simply silly. Thanks for the attempted explanation for you hatred, anyhow.

Oh, poor, poor William Johnson. Let’s all shed a tear for the death of liberty, and lament the passing of that time when men lived free.

BTW, Will… If I “hated” you, it would not be because of your opinions. It would mostly be because of this butt-hurt, melodramatic persecution complex you insist on wallowing in. (And it’s not “hate” so much as it’s just really pathetic and annoying.) Your opinions ARE, IMHO, ignorant, misinformed, mostly hateful, and both spiritually and scientifically misguided. But you remained entitled to both have and express them. And as I’ve said before and demonstrated with this post: I would not DREAM of suppressing them. Free speech is sacrosanct with me, and this includes even what some might label “hate speech.” (I’m not saying YOUR’S is necessarily, just saying how far I take that and how seriously I hold to that principle.) I have never, and will never, knowingly or intentionally deleted a comment from you or anyone else, with the exception of obvious SPAM. But just as you are entitled (and welcome) to speak (here), I and everyone else is entitled to our opinions and to respond in kind. So if you don’t wish to be treated like an idiot, stop posting stupid shit!

On a less histrionic note… I have noticed the lack of comments lately, possibly due to the lack of regular postings myself but also possibly due to the comment settings being overly restrictive (although to date Will is the only one who’s complained about that or let me know) or to the lack of disagreement without our favorite punching bags, William and/or Anonymous, [same person?] to kick around anymore. Well, whatever the case, I’m going to try and tweak the comment settings again. I’m going to allow anonymous posting (all posting, basically) but I’m going to require a Captcha phrase to prevent spam. I personally don’t like those, but Blogger doesn’t leave me many options. So I’m going to do that, and post a brief guideline above, just so people like William know what will get a comment deleted and what won’t. And I’ll say it right up front: If the Captcha requirement isn’t effective, I will go back to the current settings. We’ll just have to see how it goes.

And Will? you can test me all you want, but you will fail every single time. There is no political or opinion you could post here that would cause to go against my principles, and you have nowhere near the intellectual gravitas to catch me in a rhetorical trap that I can’t get out of with a trivial effort. But you are certainly welcome to try: I will continue to take on all comers.