How to Argue 'Gay Rights' like an Idiot

Here's what Twitter has in common with the pools at the Jersey shore hotels I stayed at throughout my childhood: "Life guard off duty.  Swim at your own risk."  I got a hard lesson in this maxim yesterday, when I engaged with a few activists whose raison d'être is to redefine marriage.

So here, for the reader's benefit, is the two-and-a-half-step strategy on how to argue "gay rights" like an idiot.

Step 1: Display embarrassing ignorance of Christianity and the Bible.

(This last from a girl who posted a picture of a sex toy shaped like a crucifix and told me to "let Jesus penetrate" me.  She's since deleted those, suggesting that the pro-redefinition females, at least, have a lingering iota of shame.)

Step 2: When that doesn't work, relentlessly hit on your opponent.

(Step 2.5 is to divert focus to your opponent's hat, but this requires your opponent to be wearing a hat.  Otherwise, any other trivial detail about his or her appearance will do.)

It's worth noting how these Twitter activists have responded to the stereotype that homosexual militants are obsessed with sodomy, devoid of class, and more interested in making people uncomfortable than in instructing or persuading.  Faced with being characterized as lubricious, disgusting reprobates, they choose to buck the trend and show how they deserve to be taken seriously by revealing themselves as lubricious, disgusting reprobates.

This is what feminists call "sexual harassment" – the sort of behavior that leads to Slut Walks, long-suffering columns in The Guardian, and ridiculous "He for She" campaigns.  If these homosexuals and their supporters breathed even a word of this language to a woman, Betty Friedan's progeny would crucify them.  But when it's a homosexual militant using sexually charged language in a blatant attempt to discomfit a man, it's crickets from the feminist peanut gallery.

There is only so much I can complain about this, considering the harrowing ordeals brave individuals like Bobby Lopez and Rivka Edelman have endured.  But my Twitter adventure with the LGBT hornets' nest (and this is not the first time) is nonetheless instructive – a small example among much larger ones of how these people behave.  "Bullying is bad," indeed.

Then again, in even giving these people the time of day, maybe it's I who am the idiot in these arguments.  But if I'm going to resolve to speak my mind to comparatively harmless university donation-seekers, I can't let sex-obsessed anti-family creeps on Twitter go unchallenged.

Drew Belsky is American Thinker's deputy editor.  Contact him at drew@americanthinker.com, and follow him on Twitter @DJB627.

Here's what Twitter has in common with the pools at the Jersey shore hotels I stayed at throughout my childhood: "Life guard off duty.  Swim at your own risk."  I got a hard lesson in this maxim yesterday, when I engaged with a few activists whose raison d'être is to redefine marriage.

So here, for the reader's benefit, is the two-and-a-half-step strategy on how to argue "gay rights" like an idiot.

Step 1: Display embarrassing ignorance of Christianity and the Bible.

(This last from a girl who posted a picture of a sex toy shaped like a crucifix and told me to "let Jesus penetrate" me.  She's since deleted those, suggesting that the pro-redefinition females, at least, have a lingering iota of shame.)

Step 2: When that doesn't work, relentlessly hit on your opponent.

(Step 2.5 is to divert focus to your opponent's hat, but this requires your opponent to be wearing a hat.  Otherwise, any other trivial detail about his or her appearance will do.)

It's worth noting how these Twitter activists have responded to the stereotype that homosexual militants are obsessed with sodomy, devoid of class, and more interested in making people uncomfortable than in instructing or persuading.  Faced with being characterized as lubricious, disgusting reprobates, they choose to buck the trend and show how they deserve to be taken seriously by revealing themselves as lubricious, disgusting reprobates.

This is what feminists call "sexual harassment" – the sort of behavior that leads to Slut Walks, long-suffering columns in The Guardian, and ridiculous "He for She" campaigns.  If these homosexuals and their supporters breathed even a word of this language to a woman, Betty Friedan's progeny would crucify them.  But when it's a homosexual militant using sexually charged language in a blatant attempt to discomfit a man, it's crickets from the feminist peanut gallery.

There is only so much I can complain about this, considering the harrowing ordeals brave individuals like Bobby Lopez and Rivka Edelman have endured.  But my Twitter adventure with the LGBT hornets' nest (and this is not the first time) is nonetheless instructive – a small example among much larger ones of how these people behave.  "Bullying is bad," indeed.

Then again, in even giving these people the time of day, maybe it's I who am the idiot in these arguments.  But if I'm going to resolve to speak my mind to comparatively harmless university donation-seekers, I can't let sex-obsessed anti-family creeps on Twitter go unchallenged.

Drew Belsky is American Thinker's deputy editor.  Contact him at drew@americanthinker.com, and follow him on Twitter @DJB627.