This blog is now mobile friendly »« Ask and ye shall receive, Ray…

We get the most amazing e-mails…

The following is an anonymous e-mail (wall of text, really) we just received. It was addressed to Jeff, so I won’t waste time responding (hurray)…but this is one tiny segment of what we deal with. It may be a Poe, but the author certainly seems to have all the answers. Enjoy:

Hello, Jeff Dee. I would like to ask you a few questions about your video that was done 6 years ago about same-sex marriage. The first thing you said is that it is not bad for the kids. This is wrong. Every child deserves a mother and a father. The only time a child might not have either a father or mother might be because the parent leaves them (which is wrong) or one or both parents die (which is a tragedy). Gay couples go into a relationship knowing they cannot produce offspring so they should not have the right to adopt kids. Just like an old couple that might be 70 years old should not be allowed to adopt because they are near the end of their lives. And Matt said that nothing bad has happened since gay marriage has been allowed but what if 50% of the population was gay. Don’t you think
there would be something wrong in that situation? Matt also said that Rosie O’Donnel is single and she adopted a child. That is wrong as well. Just because she was able to do it does not mean it was right. And then you said that gays not being able to have kids isn’t a good reason why they shouldn’t get married because there are infertile couples that get married. Well, how would a couple know that they are infertile until they actually get married and try to have kids? Gays automatically know that it is impossible for them to have kids. They know it. Infertile couples do not. Then you said that because animals are gay, that makes homosexuality natural. Well, dogs also sniff each others butts. When some animals are born, the mother will
eat the placenta off her newborn. Does that make it natural for human beings to do that as well? You can’t compare animals and humans. What is natural for an animal may not be natural for a human. As well, animals can’t think. They don’t have the thinking power that humans do. They don’t know that homosexuality is wrong and they don’t need to care about that. When an animal dies, it dies. It doesn’t go anywhere. They rely on instinct. They don’t have rules like humans do. When animals kill other animals, does that make it okay for humans to kill humans? But then why did you say that because animals commit homosexual acts that it is okay for humans to do so as well? And then you used that left-handedness argument which was so pointless. God never said it’s a sin to write with your left hand. No one gets hurt from someone writing with their left hand. And then you said the word “bigots” but that would mean you’re a bigot too since you are intolerant of my religion. Bigot does not just apply to people who are against homosexuality. And just because someone isn’t in favour of homosexuality, it does not make that person a bigot. And the reason AIDS affects gay people is because they can only do anal. In the Bible, anal and oral sex is a sin. That is why even straight people are not allowed to practice that type of sex or else it is a sin. God is smarter than you think. And then you brought up the “small people” argument but that’s a physical trait. Even if they can change it, they shouldn’t because that is how they should be born into this world. Homosexuality is a choice. You can choose on your own if you want to be with the same or opposite sex. But that child in the uterus cannot choose if he/she is born small or regular. And then you said how just because a dictionary defines marriage as man and woman that it can change to say man and man or woman and woman. Well, Christians don’t follow the dictionary. We follow the Bible, and in the Bible it is defined as man and woman. So your dictionary argument was bad. And your legal/law argument as well. Just because the law says something is right that does not make it right. Laws and dictionary definitions change all the time but the Bible stays true, unless God changes it. And then Matt made that horrible argument how if a gay couple secretly gets married that live next door that it wouldn’t affect you because you don’t know about that. So something is okay as long as you don’t know about it? Well, what if the next door neighbour was a father and son and they both went off to get married secretly? So do you think incest is okay? Because who are they hurting this “father and son”. From Matt’s standpoint, if he wants to be consistent, then he can’t say that it is wrong for a father and son to go off and get married secretly. Also, what if the next door neighbour has sex with his dog yet no one knows about it? Does that make it right for that person to have sex with his dog? So do you think it’s okay for your next door neighbour to have sex with a dog since that doesn’t affect you, especially if you don’t know about it? And then you said just because the Bible says that homosexuality is wrong, that doesn’t make it true. Well the Bible says incest is wrong. So you, as an Atheist, can have no right in saying that incest is wrong. Because if society said incest is okay, would you then be in favour of incest? And you brought up the “trade deal” argument. Doesn’t that happen in society today where the man pays for the wedding, the ring, etc? It was just a different way of paying back then because there was no money. They had animals so they had to use that. And then lastly, you said there are no secular reasons why gay marriage should be against the law. But if you think about it, what is gonna stop incest from becoming allowed in law? What about pedophilia? Don’t you think society is getting out of hand? Sure, the gay couple next door may not affect my straight marriage directly, but it does affect it indirectly because it ruins society. Soon it could be allowed that you can have sex with animals. Is it okay to get married to an animal just because it is legal? Nah.

Comments

  1. says

    > Well, how would a couple know that they areinfertile until they actually get married and try to have kids? Gays automatically know that it is impossible for them to have kids. They know it. Infertile couples do not.In other words "I would ban infertile people from getting married, but for practical reasons, i can not".

  2. says

    Oh yeah, there’s some serious human thinking power going on that message. Just because this person enjoys freedom of speech doesn’t mean they’re not being an asshat. I’m going to assume they would disapprove of my childless by choice marriage.Anti gay rights bingo, anyone? How do you respond to something like this? Do you split it up into even sections so each person only has to respond to a few points, or is poor Jeff going to be tasked with the whole lot of it? Oy.

  3. says

    Gay couples go into a relationship knowing they cannot produce offspring so they should not have the right to adopt kids.That's about as non-sequitur as it gets.

  4. says

    Some year ago, when I first started listening to your show and reading this blog, I'd say it was a Poe. Today, I'm not so sure anymore. I'm afraid this e-mail is sincere, which is really sad.

  5. says

    @ Cyphern -Re. Infertile couples shouldn't be allowed to marry. As bat-shit crazy as this guy is, I have to concede that he may have a made a really good point here for his side. If a christian believes in no sex before marriage then he is right, they would only discover their infertility afterwards, and since they are already married, they can rationalise that its their god's will for them not to have children. Since the marrige was not stopped by god, they are meant to be a childless married couple for whatever(mysterious!) reason. It actually makes sense within their crazy logic,

  6. says

    The rest of this post is pure crazy and I'd like to counter the line of "Don’t you think society is getting out of hand? " by saying that I think society is getting better and better, and more and more moral as time goes by as religion is getting less and less influential!

  7. Martin says

    Stupidest motherfucker ever.I'm sure Lot and his drunk daughters would be surprised to hear the Bible is against incest.

  8. anonymous says

    I suppose I’ll tackle the “found in nature” portion.Sure. Somethings that are found in nature and are therefore considered to be natural can also be morally wrong, such as murder, rape, or theft. So we can agree with this emailer when he says that natural does not equal right. Doubtful, however, that this emailer would concede this inequality swings both ways; unnatural does not equal wrong. It is unnatural for humans to fly and yet there is nothing morally wrong with doing this every day. We don’t hear Christians condemning the airlines. In fact, the unnatural flight of man is not even addressed in the bible (correct me otherwise) since the bible (as this emailer has pointed out) has not changed in thousands of years since it was written when such flight could not even be fathomed. So natural does not equal right and unnatural does not equal wrong. In the future, let’s be sure to clarify both sides of this inequality when up against the narrow-mindedness of a theist. Moving on.“What is natural for an animal may not be natural for a human…” We won’t waste our time arguing that humans are primates and, therefore, animals as well. Instead I would like to dissect this claim, making it as true as it can be and as false as it can be at the same time. Sure. It is unnatural for humans to grow limbs once they have been cut off the way starfish do (unless the son of god happens to be around?) this is why we make the distinction, “human nature.” Sadly, murder, rape and theft ARE a part of human nature. But once ANY animal reaches a level of intelligence where morality can be grasped, the long and strenuous task of abandoning several hardwired survival instincts becomes necessary. But we can’t stop the argument there either, or else we’ve only demonstrated that homosexuality could, arguably, be considered NATURAL yet IMMORAL. We have to ask the emailer to demonstrate what makes homosexuality immoral. The burden of proof is hers or his. As a gay, married man with three beautiful daughters, you can imagine I’ve conducted or sat-in-on my fair share of this debate. No theist, nation wide, world wide, has yet to pin down and point to any such immorality without pinning down and pointing to one ancient religious tome or another. Until they can, they are obligated to step aside and allow freedom, democracy, equality, and above all PROGRESS reshape human nature. Send proof of homosexual immorality to: [email protected] Thankyou in advance ;)

  9. says

    @farmboy : My thoughts exactly. Heck, I know a lesbian couple that have had two children through artificial insemination. They are both very happy, and the kids are some of the most well rounded, bright, & inquisitive kids I've had the pleasure to meet. These children are being raised with love by two wonderful, loving parents.

  10. says

    If it is too long for you just read the first and last sentences: "Hello, Jeff Dee. I would like to ask you a few questions about your video that was done 6 years ago about same-sex marriage.Is it okay to get married to an animal just because it is legal? Nah."

  11. says

    I'm still sitting here, in my lesbolicious stupor, wondering how one goes from homosexuality to neighbors having sex with animals and pedophilia…Boundaries set up by society are not concrete, they are fluid with the times and progress of people. To concretely set those boundaries off of a book, a.k.a the bible, is foolish and ignorant as well as lacking any critical thinking. I would suggest living your life with passion, meaning and a search for truth instead of wasting time worrying and thinking about your neighbors sex life. I'm convinced that men/woman like this person think about my sex more often than I do.

  12. Martin says

    RockStar75: I'm still sitting here, in my lesbolicious stupor, wondering how one goes from homosexuality to neighbors having sex with animals and pedophilia…I think it's called "being a goddamned idiot."

  13. says

    Touché robin!! Seriously, it's rants like this that make me want to go "undercover" in the straight world and ruin straight marriage….. Oh wait, there doing that just fine on their own. Now what??

  14. OnceProudKnight says

    Some days this would infuriate me, some days it would just dishearten me. But on days like today, I just feel callous to it. I use to be a fundamentalist Christian. Reading some of my old journal, I see I use to have these same horribly bad arguments. I use to use these flawed lines of reasoning. I was earnest and sincere. And over the years, after meeting the right people and questioning the right things, I became an Atheist.And I am terrified at how fucking stupid most of the people I knew and respected as a Christian are. But what terrifies me more is wondering if I am still that fucking stupid, and I've just fell for another flawed train of thought.Is it even possible all of humanity is this fucking stupid? I mean, whoever this is probably feeds themselves, might even have a job. Might even have a goddamned career. *sigh*

  15. says

    Jeff, if you read this post, I hope you link this guy here; I'm sure we'd all love to rip him to shreds :-)~Ian

  16. says

    It always disappoints me when someone spends so long chattering and they can be answered in a single word.Consent.

  17. says

    After many years trying to be straight and an equal amount trying to be gay, I have come to the conclusion that I am asexual. I wonder, should asexuals be allowed to get married? Is it a sin to not consummate a marriage? Should I be allowed to adopt? After all, shouldn't I be getting it on and making babies of my own? What if I choose to be in a sexless relationship with someone of the same sex, is that still an abomination? Religion is so focused on sexual sins, I would love to see them scrambling to try to explain what's unnatural and sinful about my (and many others) reluctance to "fornicate". It seems this dumbass would rather I force myself to be a baby factory than adopt a child in need. I don't know how all those babies "saved" from abortion will find homes with assholes like this setting such rigid standards for adoptive parents.

  18. says

    I can't believe anyone could really be this thick. I'd love to spell out for him/her that Matt wasn't saying that anything done in secret is okay — the point was that homosexual relationships harm no one, and the fact that you wouldn't know if your neighbors were married only served to point out that nobody is being harmed by said relationship.And homosexual relationships are still shared between two consenting adults. A father and son (presumably) would involve a minor, making it not consentual. A man and a dog would involve an animal who cannot speak for itself, making it not consentual. Is that really so difficult for some people to grasp?I usually point to successful countries who allow gay marriage to knock their slippery slope arguments, but it's amazing the retorts they come up with anyway…

  19. says

    Everyone knows that filling yourself full of gay is like a gateway drug towards incest, paedophilia and sex with poodles. Once you pop you just can't stop.This is why I have never chosen to be gay myself.

  20. says

    I think you guys have been Poe'd. His ideas are stupid but his grammar is nearly impeccable. I seriously doubt someone can be both that bright and that dull at the same time. Go back and reread it, but look at how it's composed. Other than the fact that it's a text wall, and the ideas are batshit, it's a decent piece.

  21. says

    Mikekoz68: As bat-shit crazy as this guy is, I have to concede that he may have a made a really good point here for his side. If a christian believes in no sex before marriage then he is right, they would only discover their infertility afterwards, and since they are already married, they can rationalise that its their god's will for them not to have children.Oh, come on, it's not like most Christians don't believe in doctors. At the very least, this guy's logic suggests that couples should have to have their fertility checked prior to marriage, in much the same way that some states require couples to receive blood tests to prove that they're not closely related.

  22. says

    @mikekoz68 'If a christian believes in no sex before marriage then….they would only discover their infertility afterwards'Although, this may be true in the majority of cases, it is not so for everyone. There are people, who due illness, accident, or operation are aware that they are infertile. So, according to this email writer, they should be denied the opportunity to marry.This discussion reminds me of a catholic friend with celebral palsey. He met a lady, they fell in love and planned to marry. When they went to the church to make arrangements, the priest insisted he bring notes from his mother and doctor indicating that he was capable of reproducing. Why a note from his mother was asked for is baffling. It was infuriating that the priest figured he had the right to refuse to allow them to marry–to even ask the question in the first place. I was a catholic then and saw how incredibly arrogant and wrong this was.

  23. says

    Wow. This sounds like the person who wrote my group a 12 page letter years ago telling us that people with my disability displeased Gawd, and that we should sterilize our children and kill ourselves to bring the world back to Eden. Hmmm. I wonder if it was the same guy.

  24. says

    This almost sounds like Jared Lee Loughner somehow got on the internet while in prison…if you've read his blog ramblings, it's the same type of circular reasoning.

  25. says

    Marriage is a ridiculous fascination, first of all. And this guy needs to smoke a bowl and realize that this life is so much more than him. That he and all humans are meaningless in relation to the universe. We should, instead, spend our short life loving, exploring and learning about the world and ourselves, discover new ways to EXPAND our lifespan and explore space! Use our intelligence for good and not evil! Its all wishful thinking.These guys who believe they are just in speaking in gods behalf really know how to brainwash people.And I'm sorry you believers feel that order, authority, and design are acceptable. Its simple, really, to get out of that mindset; be happy with who you are.Living in fear of sin really limits your possibilities of fun!I'm sure once you've tried oral sex, you'd come to enjoy it. pleasure is natural, my friends. Ain't no question about it.

  26. says

    "Laws and dictionary definitions change all the time but the Bible stays true, unless God changes it."I wonder how many times has God -the infallible, all-knowing, Omnipotent author of his own Biography – has changed the bible? The bible – The sacred, infallible, eternally relevant manual for morals and slave ownership. Which was of course written by this god guy. Seems to me that if the possibility of change to either exist, then they are not that perfect after all…Also got to love the slippery slope panic argument. If we legalize eating pork, seafood and wearing sheatnez, who knows where it will end! We might as well legalize murder and theft since the bible says these are sins as well.

  27. says

    A lot to pick and choose from, but I liked this part:"And then you said the word “bigots” but that would mean you’re a bigot too since you are intolerant of my religion. Bigot does not just apply to people who are against homosexuality. And just because someone isn’t in favour of homosexuality, it does not make that person a bigot."Translation: Your intolerance of my intolerance makes you intolerant too!A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one exhibiting intolerance, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs. So, you are not a bigot because you are "not in favor of homosexuality", you are a bigot because you are prejudiced, intolerant, and seek to limit the rights, of homosexuals.Don't think it is a poe. The animal arguments actually have some semblance of reason, even if they missed the point of the argument they are refuting.

  28. says

    I think this guy is a Poe, and my belief comes from a single sentence: "And the reason AIDS affects gay people is because they can only do anal."The wording is suspect. *do* anal? As opposed to a more fundie-friendly word like, say, sodomy? I may be wrong, but I see this as a tell in an otherwise solid stool sample. A peanut in the poo, if you will.

  29. says

    One thing I'm proud of in my the work I do (amongst other things) is we bite our thumbs at the mainstream religions. I work in an AIDS related foundation. Pro-condoms, pro-gay and anti-AIDS which unfortunately is not the stance of many religious institutions.

  30. says

    He nailed one important detail about animals eating placenta. Animals are primarily $cientologists because of Zenu and the volcanoes and so forth.

  31. says

    "but what if 50% of the population was gay."Uh, maybe I'd have a date tonight instead of sitting at home working on a paper for school. A half gay world… in my dreams and, apparently, this guy's nightmares.

  32. anonymous says

    @Nathan"a peanut in the poo if you will…"a full sixty seconds of laughter there, thankyou.**a short note on the aids thing (in case this dumbass emailer winds up reading these criticisms)…"the reason aids affects gay people is because they can only do anal"actually, the reason hiv has become, sadly, associated with homosexuality is simple. there was a time when condoms (or safe sex in general) was a new concept with one basic agenda; to avoid pregnancy. condoms were suddenly everywhere and accidental conception was reduced drastically. meanwhile, homosexuals were not concerned with pregnancy (duh) and were therefore falling behind in the safe sex movement.as hiv and aids spread and got it's innitial stronghold, it was predominantly within the gay community. once STDs became the primary reason for safe sex (bumping pregnancy to the secondary) the gays finally began "wrappin it up" if you will.i hope each and every portion of this email is eventually addressed and i hope this emailer is then directed to this blog post. pick a line and debunk it peeps!

  33. anonymous says

    "but what if 50% of the population was gay?"Well, last I checked, we were 6.5 billion humans going on 10 billion. a debate worth having is weather or not overpopulation is something evolution is equipped to deal with. 'putting the breaks on natural selection' if you will… Sexual attraction; nothing more than survival instincts at it's best.a misfiring of this basic survival instinct could help to slow the march towards overpopulation. in the grand scheme, 50% gay could contribute to the overall success of any species. I'll leave it at that and spend my time tackling one of the other points of the email.

  34. anonymous says

    "Homosexuality is a choice. You can choose on your own if you want to be with the same or opposite sex."dead horse.rather than argue that homosexuality is Not a choice, I'll take this opportunity to present a hypothesis of mine..in the past handful of decades we've seen a great "coming out" of the gays. the population of openly homosexual men and women is growing, even though homosexuality was always there, merely closeted. and yet, the BIsexuals are falling behind in this great "outing" (understandably).the only person I can concede ever had the choice to "be with the same or opposite sex" is a bisexual, and i can't blame them for choosing to be with the opposite. therefore, anyone who convinces me that they truly believe in this "choice" bullshit (and is not simply repeating what they've been told) is a closeted bisexual in my book.it will be religion that keeps the bisexuals in the closet even after the homosexuals break free of it.

  35. anonymous says

    "well, Christians don't follow the dictionary… …so your dictionary argument was bad."if only this was a caller rather than an emailer. they never would have been allowed to dismiss a citation of the dictionary.of course, if it were a phone call, it would never have made it past the first few "points."thankyou for your time, i'll tackle more tomorrow perhaps.

  36. says

    a debate worth having is weather or not overpopulation is something evolution is equipped to deal with. 'putting the breaks on natural selection' if you will… Not quite sure what you mean by this. The way that evolution typically deals with overpopulation is by famine: the population grows faster than the food supply, so sooner or later, somebody starves to death, reducing the population.

  37. says

    Yeouch, that individual must be taking private breathing lessons!Reminds me of Good Old Bill Muehlenberg from Australia. Here's a sample:[IMG]http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g153/winstonjen/Billy_01.jpg[/IMG]

  38. anonymous says

    @lukas"The way that evolution typically deals with overpopulation is by famine…"sure. if a species still relies on survival instincts to eat, then famine (typically) will do the trick. metaphorically this would be like running out of gas. if a species graduates beyond survival instincts and can simply produce or breed food, famine will no longer work.hopefully a plan B would have been in place from the very beginning, laying more or less dormant until such time as the metaphorical breaks must be put on.There's no easy way to simply discard sexual attraction. but perhaps redirecting it towards the same sex … thus the hypothesis.thankyou for the response =]

  39. says

    Perhaps it's a failing on my part, but I simply cannot read a solid wall of text like this. Just a minute, I'm going to throw arbitrary paragraph breaks in and actually read it.===============Wow, this is most impressive, it reads like a compilation of all the bullocks about gay marriage. You know what, since I took all the time and trouble of breaking it up into bite-size chunks for better digestion (despite the bad taste it left in my mouth), I'll post my running commentary as I read.===============Hello, Jeff Dee. I would like to ask you a few questions about your video that was done 6 years ago about same-sex marriage. ((Jesus Christ, I hope Jeff Dee has a better memory than me. I can't remember videos I did last month, let alone 6 years))The first thing you said is that it is not bad for the kids. This is wrong. Every child deserves a mother and a father. The only time a child might not have either a father or mother might be because the parent leaves them (which is wrong) or one or both parents die (which is a tragedy). ((Well, you've made a statement, do you have anything to back it up? Or, shall we just take this as a bald-faced assertion and move along? Yeah, I thought as much.))Gay couples go into a relationship knowing they cannot produce offspring so they should not have the right to adopt kids. Just like an old couple that might be 70 years old should not be allowed to adopt because they are near the end of their lives. ((So an inability to produce offspring automatically makes someone an unfit parent? Wow, good to know.))And Matt said that nothing bad has happened since gay marriage has been allowed but what if 50% of the population was gay. Don’t you think there would be something wrong in that situation? ((And what if 50% of the population were cybernetic space Nazis, as long as we're imagining things? Seriously, here are the things wrong with that situation: first, there would still be a heterosexual population of over three BILLION people, it might actually be good for us as a speicies if half the population stopped breeding; second, just because a man or woman is gay doesn't mean their breeding capabilities shut down. Women can still be inseminated, men can still donate sperm, and, hard though it may be to grasp, if push comes to shove reproduction minded gay people CAN still have heterosexual sex…they just won't be sexually exited by the prospect. It does happen, you know. So don't worry about the human race dying out from the gay…we'll be just fine.))Matt also said that Rosie O’Donnel is single and she adopted a child. That is wrong as well. Just because she was able to do it does not mean it was right. And then you said that gays not being able to have kids isn’t a good reason why they shouldn’t get married because there are infertile couples that get married. Well, how would a couple know that they are infertile until they actually get married and try to have kids? Gays automatically know that it is impossible for them to have kids. They know it. Infertile couples do not. ((Well, there are several reasons why a couple may already know that they are infertile, which you would realize if you have thought-one in that big melon on top of your neck. Just to name a few, physical trauma to the sex organs, disease, and other such things can result in infertility. You don't need to have sex to know that you won't get pregnant after a complete hystorectomy. And you haven't addressed, even remotely, why people incapable of having children are unfit to be parents. And why do infertile couples get a pass because they might not know it? Once they find out that they are inferile, should their marriage be annuled? And shouldn't the same happen to the old folks you mentioned earlier?))======Continued in part 2

  40. says

    Dang, I had quite a bit to say, but apparantly the blog doesn't like long or multiple posts, so I'll sum it up: they're a prat who doesn't know the difference between consensual sex and various form of exploitation and rape and hasn't been able to provide a single iota of evidence that homosexuality is wrong…or that the Bible is correct.

  41. says

    It amazes me that this person must have felt that he utterly devastated Jeff with logic…*sigh*We're in trouble if this sort of thinking prevails….which it seems to be doing.

  42. says

    I'm just curious if this writer has submitted any other topics of discussion or is this the first? If it's the only topic that motivates the writer to respond then I really must question the motives behind it. Surely there are any number of religious objections a theist might have with an atheist program such as this. What I want to know is why does this particular subject motivate a response if nothing else does? It almost reads as if this writer is trying to convince his or herself rather than Jeff Dee.

  43. says

    Ignore my post above I read all the responses and forgot that it was penned by an anonymous person. It would be impossiblw to know if this is the first time they have written to Jeff or not.I suppose it is noteworthy though that anyone so sure of their own opinions as this person seems to be would not have a problem being recognized for said opinions. Signing anything as "anonymous", to me means that you may not even believe what you are saying and don't want to discuss or debate it because you may learn you are in fact wrong.

  44. says

    the claim that infertile people do not know that they cant have kids until they are married is false. i am sterile and i have known since i was 17, i simply do not produce one of the hormones necessary (FSH). Now that i know before entering into a relationship that i am infertile, am i still allowed to get married?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>