tony perkins + the washington post = ugly hate child

And while I hate that this happened, the evidence it provides to yesterday's ramblin' proto-philosophical disasterpiece is too good to pass up. Of course, I'm talking about right-wing weirdo Tony Perkins and the Washington Post's decision to publish what on Monday really boils down to excellent evidence about how being a God-fearing man (in this case of the Christian variety) does not help a person make truly moral decisions. Yes, under the definition that morality equates to increasing actions that elevate people's well-being, there is a definitive right and wrong when it comes to the gays and it's simple. It's wrong to bash them and it's right to grant them equal rights, as we did years ago with black people and women. Sure, the Bible states numerous times that homosexuality is a sin, but it also states that you should kill your offspring if they talk back to you, burn certain animals as sacrifices to God, only wear clothes made of one material, and, of course, keep a whole bunch of slaves. I guess it's a good thing for the Christian right that most believers haven't read the Bible because the mental gymnastics involved to believe that is the word of God must be next to impossible. Unless you're Tony Perkins, who demonstrated how far one man could bend the physics of the mind with his Post-published argument about bullying, homosexuality and the Christian faith. To paraphrase, he's not OK with individuals bullying other individuals, but he's more than happy with large institutions holding a large part of humanity down. I ask, what is the difference? Except maybe that the latter is more immoral... Does boasting that homosexuality is a sin that will send you to the burning pits of hell (or is it "outer darkness" -- the Bible can't seem to decide) do anything to stop individuals who are told they're superior to another from bullying someone else who they're told is the enemy? I doubt it. In short, Tony Perkins is wrong. At best he's simply ignorant, a person too stupid to understand how unreasonable and illogical his argument is. Individuals bullying individuals won't stop if large swaths of society condone it via what they think is God-sanctioned bigotry. (Seriously, respect God enough to believe it's not an asshole). At worst, Perkins is immoral, a person conscious of the suffering of others, but unwilling to change his behavior to help stop it. And yes, my above argument rests on a crucial fact: Homosexuality is not wrong. In fact, in a world full of unwanted pregnancies and overpopulation, it's probably a more moral thing to be than being a 31-year-old straight woman with a ticking biological clock. Of course, since we can't choose our sexual orientations, we'll all have to deal with the nudie cards we've been given thanks to evolution. But that's neither here nor there. Perhaps the biggest immoral act was for the Post to give Perkins another national platform on which to spew his vile idiocy. Maybe it was an intentional stunt to take the heat off vile idiot Courtland Milloy, but whatever the case I think they've managed to set a new low in "journalism." Since this treatise of 'tard was published on Monday, the Post has justified it as the counter argument to groups like syndicated columnist and gay rights advocate Dan Savage's "It Gets Better" organization, which, in hopes of curtailing instances of homosexual teenagers getting bullied to the point of depression and suicide, boasts the moral message that being gay is nothing to be ashamed of. I don't know about you, but to me, a nation where there's less depression and suicide sounds like a huge gain for the well-being of all. So, what gives, Washington Post? Why counter an argument when you know the counterpoint is morally wrong? Are you ignorant, evil or both ignorant and evil? What's next, will you give the Ku Klux Klan a platform? With your current logic, apparently there must be another side to the slavery issue. Or what about giving a voice to child molesters? Certainly the issue of sexually abusing kids is open for debate. And hell, who let the women wear pants and hold jobs? Let's find someone to give us the other side of that story, too. Seriously, I think this is the kind of thoughtless drivel that Sam Harris spoke of on Tuesday and that I wrote about yesterday. Morality is not relative when you measure it via reason with the goal of making a more just society that increases well-being and lessens suffering. The Washington Post's decision to publish Perkins' insane and dangerous views did neither. Yes, Washington Post, kudos to you for becoming a grand abomination among those of us smart enough read. I hope you enjoy your new role of being kindling for the bigots to use when they set flame to the crosses they've built on innocent people's lawns.