Why Phil Robertson is Smarter than His Critics

Can someone explain to me why GLAAD isn’t beating the war drums against GQ magazine?  After all, if the best thing is for Phil Robertson’s words to not be given a platform at A&E, then it follows that GQ shouldn’t publish them either.  Shouldn’t they be upset that GQ provided a platform for Robertson to disseminate his religious conviction that homo-sex is sinful?

Oh, that’s right, GLAAD loves having people like Phil Robertson around as fuel for their narcissistic ego-drama.  Either call for the end to free speech and get the government to punish ‘the hate-crime that is disapproval,’ or feign outrage and cry for retribution for the violation of your desire for the endorsement of your every predilection.

The layers of absolute intellectual incoherence to this fight are numerous, but allow me to point out the single greatest demonstration of irrational pseudo-thought coming from the warriors of anti-conscience known as GLAAD.  Phil Robertson expressed his belief in the sinfulness of something.  Now, putting aside the fact that this is a private conviction, the idea of sinfulness, of sin, is nonsensical apart from a belief in a divinity who cares about the affairs of men.  Sin is derived from the German Sünde, which is also where we get sunder and asunder–it refers to separation.  Sin is that which separates man from God; sin is the separation.

You cannot take offense at something devoid of meaning.–Reader, are you offended when I tell you that snuffleglocks object to your boltfrunt?–So, either GLAAD is, as I suggested earlier, feigning outrage, or they actually endorse the concepts of sin and, sin’s prerequisite, God.  It comes down to theism or bullshit.  I’m quite certain that you’ll have no trouble dispatching with the first possibility.

But permit me one final note: I began by expressing disdain for the irrationality of the GLAAD cohort.  So, in the spirit of intellectual honesty and true coherence, let me present the third option.  If GLAAD isn’t positing theism, and if they aren’t feigning, then they actually have taken offense at an idea that is incompatible with their worldview.  Yes, if they aren’t pretending to be utter fools, then they are so mentally deficient as to be upset by the notion that Mary Poppins hates homo-sex.  Thankfully, if possibility 3 is true, atleast God has greater mercy for those with little minds.

BroChoice Defines a People

I’m a fan of my opponents being honest, brutally honest, which is exactly why I was overjoyed, yet equally disgusted, by the new BroChoice campaign.  Define “BroChoice”?  Sure.  BroChoice is the decision to advocate for easy and cheap antepartum infanticide for the express reason that one believes women are more likely to be promiscuous.  That begs the obvious question, with an equally obvious answer, “Who wants more promiscuous women?”  Douchebags who act and think as though women exist primarily to bring them to climax.  Watch:

Oddly enough, BroChoice is kinda a double entendre, atleast in my mind.  First, by being BroChoice, you are ‘choosing your bros,’ that is prioritizing your male acquaintances’ desire for unmitigated sexual satisfaction.  Second–and this is the heart-wrenching fact that the falsely self-identified ‘pro-women’ abortionists would very much like to keep quiet–sex-selective abortions are fairly common, and, by far, innocent little girls are aborted more than little boys.  So, BroChoice also promotes the value of male life over and above female life in another way.  No matter how you look at it, being BroChoice, or whatever other name one wants to give to advocating the bloodshed of babies, means working to make sure women are around as instruments of orgasm–or, in the words of Sarah Silverman, “to blow you.”

There is No Such Thing as Compulsory Priestly Celibacy

I read an article recently that declared “compulsory celibacy” to be the common denominator to the Church’s problems of reputation loss, due to abuse by priests, and the shortage or priests.  First, calling priestly celibacy “compulsory” is like calling marital monogamy “compulsory.”  Nobody forces a man to become a priest and adopt celibacy, just as no man is coerced into marriage and adopting monogamy.

Secondly, saying that attempted celibacy is in any way responsible for any instances of abuse by priests is to declare that nobody can or should attempt to abstain from sexual relations for extended periods of time.  Therefore, blaming attempted celibacy is akin to saying that single persons, having yet to find a spouse, should not be expected to refrain from sex.  Consequently, fornication is eliminated by decree.  And I thought the sexual revolution of the 60s and 70s was bad!

If you can’t accept a permanent commitment to have sex with only one person for the rest of your life, don’t get married, but don’t expect the Church to bless your fornication either.  And if you can’t make a lifelong commitment to celibacy, don’t become a priest, but do find a wife and be faithful to her.  If you can’t accept those propositions, then you are rejecting the moral teaching of the Church and are yourself actively refusing communion with her.