Nope. If someone thinks he can justify being anti-gay by lumping in pedophilia and bestiality, he is being idiotic. Doesn’t take a brain surgeon to see that.
I don’t care if gay marriage turns out to be worse than Hitler. It wouldn’t change the idiocy of his statement one iota.
It’s not that he had an opposing viewpoint. It’s that he lumped gays with deviants:
Why not add in murders and rapists, too? By making references to those other groups, he’s making clear how he views gays.
It’s especially ironic to hear him make these remarks, since not long ago white authority over other races was considered a pillar of society. Likely, bigots back then would have made similar comparisons when blacks wanted to become more integrated into society, such as becoming a doctor. I can just imagine a bigot back then saying something like “If you let blacks into medical school, you’ll have to let <insert mentally challenged group> in, too.”
I wasn’t singling out the leadership. Just because they have law degrees doesn’t suggest the entire church is similarly educated. Granted, I don’t know that for sure, but…well, I daresay it wouldn’t be the least accurate assumption uttered on the SDMB today.
He is lumping them into the category of people who might want to change the definition of marriage, not into the category of awful people.
If I say things that are yellow such as bananas, lemons, and schoolbuses, that doesn’t mean I can’t tell the difference between fruit and huge motor vehicles, it is that I think they share one characteristic. If you read what he said, he was talking about groups that may want to change the definition of marriage, he was not equating them morally.
Given that “the entire church” is really just the Phelps family, and that his adult children (also lawyers) are running the show, yes, it IS safe to say the WBC is a well educated group.
You can call them evil. You can call them bigots. You just can’t call them illiterate yokels.
Then why didn’t he pick groups of people who are not engaging in illegal, deviant behavior? Clearly he’s trying to imply that gays, like pedos and bestiality supporters, are a deviant group. And anyway, I haven’t heard that NAMBLA or people into bestiality are trying to change the definition of marriage.
Notice the difference between these two examples:
Racially pure marriage is a pillar of society. No group, be them African-American, Hispanic, or Asian, is allowed to to change that.
Racially pure marriage is a pillar of society. No group, be them African-American, pedophiles, or necrophiliacs, is allowed to change that.
They may both be bigoted statements, but in the first the comparison is appropriate. In the second, the implication is that they are all deviant groups.
You’re right. They’re not illiterate.
The majority of the 40-member WBC comprises lawyers from the Phelps family? Please. And you might want to look up the definition of “rube,” because it doesn’t mean “illiterate.” It doesn’t even really mean “stupid.”
Religion does strange things to people, that’s basically my explanation. Some people desire so much to believe, and others are so afraid, that they’ll believe anything that will alleviate that fear
You wanna play word games? Fine. The dictionary definition of “rube” is:
1: an awkward unsophisticated person : rustic
2: a naive or inexperienced person
Is Fred Phelps “rustic,” a country boy? No, and neither is his family. Topeka isn’t exactly a sprawling metropolis, but it’s a sizable town. The Phelps clan aren’t playing banjos in the backwoods- they’re well educated town folks.
Is he awkward and unsophisticated? No- he and his family are well educated, and they’re very shrewd in working the courts to get what they want.
Are they naive or inexperienced? No.
In short, you’re just plain WRONG to call them “rubes.” You can call them evil, if you wish, you just can’t dismiss them as naive hicks. They aren’t.
People who are really brilliant at one specific challenging mental activity are rarely equally brilliant at other types of challenging mental activities. There are all sorts of different mental patterns of thought, and memorizing and regurgitating isn’t at all the same as dissecting and segregating and interpreting.
Obviously I don’t want my neurosurgeon to be wasting precious mental attention in deciding if he wants to challenge the neural architecture of my brain that’s showing up on the MRI. On the flip side, I’d really like at least one of my elected officials to show that they have a clue about researching and citing their sources before they say something stupid.
Smart, even whip smart - even brilliant smart - in one area and in one manner, doesn’t translate to other areas and other manners. It’s not fair to the person to expect that it does.
That said - I do think that equating gay marriage with bestiality and pedophilia was a misstep on his part. He’s pretty smart, after all, and even if that’s what he honestly BELIEVES, he has to know that he’s not doing himself any favors to say it out loud.
Then they can take me off their Christmas card list, big fucking deal.
It isn’t merely a political issue - he disagrees with me about the fundamental nature of the universe. Without the slightest bit of evidence except for some bronze-age fairy tales, he has concluded that there is an interventionist deity whose opinions on same-sex marriage should be followed. He is thus an idiot.
Well since you have 100% figured out the fundamental nature of the universe, then obviously someone who is only the world’s foremost brain surgeon is an idiot. But only in comparison to you. To the rest of us non-super geniuses he is merely a smart guy who has opinions on political issues that may differ somewhat from our own.
I am sure once he has heard the great Grum man has spoken on the issue, he will change his mind.
Evolution is not a “political issue”.
Well, sometimes it is, but only to idiots. 
There comes a time when something becomes more than a polite difference in opinion. This includes moral situations when basic human rights are at stake.
The legal definition of marriage is a “basic human right?”
Utterly ridiculous.
Marriage is a basic human right.
Equality is a basic human right. Marriage is one place where that plays out.
I find both of these statements, as such, to be problematic. If you really want to know why, I’ll try to briefly explain below, at the risk of hijacking the thread:
What does it mean to say “Equality is a basic human right”? What do you mean by “Equality”; equality of what? The thing that makes sense to me is equal rights; but to say that equal rights are a basic human right is circular.
To say that “Marriage is a basic human right” is to say that every human should have the right to… what? To marry the person of their choice? But what if the person of my choice doesn’t want to marry me (or is otherwise unavailable)? To marry someone? Well, everybody already has that right, sorta. It might make sense to say that the right to marry is a right which belongs to couples rather than to individuals, but that makes it a different sort of “right” than most human rights.