GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

Moonbattery In My InBox

by

My Aussie colleague, Romeo Mike, has a regular feature known as “Moonbattery on a Pole.”  (*waves to Romeo Mike in Sydney*)

Anyway, I’m trying to clean out the very clogged GayPatriot InBox (gaypatriot2004@aol.com), and I recalled that I had saved my very own “Moonbattery In My InBox.”   Here goes.

Hi, I read your article where you compare or mention both Cindy Sheehan and Fred Phelps. Now, I’m guessing since your e-mail address is, “gaypatriot” I can assume you’re a homosexual.

First off, I’ll just say that I’m 100% for gay marriage and I see nothing wrong with homosexuals for being who they are.

I do, however, think it’s wrong to take one person’s ideas and compare them to another person’s ideas when their core beliefs are radically different.

A radical liberal would be against war because he or she wouldn’t want all the bloody violence. On the other hand, a severe conservative may be anti-war because he or she supports terrorists for their hatred of homosexuals.

I myself am an anarchist and I don’t feel that oppression in anyway is a good thing at all. I also think that true Christianity is an evil thing and the Bible is full of hatred. I would never support Christianity or any of those hateful lines that tell Christians that everyone else will burn in Hell.

First of all, I’m not sure I have ever received such an anti-Christian bigoted email in my life.  But second, has anyone ever heard of a conservative opposing the War on Terror due to their hatred of homosexuals?  Conservatives, by contrast, are piling on Fred Phelps and there was even an act of Congress passed to move the freak show away from military funerals.

So perhaps this email is less “moonbattery” and more “parody”?   I know I laughed.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Comments

  1. Bruce, is this a new game called “Moonbat Jeopardy”? Are we to attribute the statement? Sure, I’ll play.

    Religious Bigots for $200, Alex.

    Is the answer: “Who is GrampaGryph?” (Just kidding Gramps. Honest.)

  3. Romeo Mike waves back!

    It sounds like your correspondent may have a case of the ‘grasping at fictitious equivalence strawman’ to support a mindset. It’s underscored when he describes himself as an anarchist, probably the most unrealistic political position to try to sustain.

  4. Vera is terribly confused (yeah, not the first time….)

    If anarchist get organized and form a group, are they still anarchists?

    Isn’t ‘anarchy’ disorganized and confused? Vera is disorganized and confused, does that make her an anarchist? If you oppose order and structure, how do you organize and structure your group? Hmmmmm….

    Also, he said: “I don’t feel that oppression in anyway is a good thing at all. I also think that true Christianity is an evil thing”

    So, he’s in favor of oppressing Christians? Or he just thinks they’re evil? If Anarchist attempted to ‘oppress’ organized, structured groups (oh, lets say the Republican Log cabin group) would he support the oppression because the LCC is organized (ha!) and he’s an anarchist or oppose it because he opposes oppression?

    If Vera goes on a hunger strike and gains weight (see: Saddam Hussein – Hunger Strike) is it still considered a ‘hunger strike’? If Vera drinks gin for breakfast, can she call it “ginfast”?

    Vera’s head is spinning…….

  5. In view of the “true Christians are evil”… I’d have to disagree (why else would I comment, right?) I’d say true love is the root of true Christianity, and Christ embodied that principle.
    The problem is, there are so few true Christians, that the message is lost. And it is false love, false Christianity, that is truly evil.

  9. From the post

    Conservatives, by contrast, are piling on Fred Phelps and there was even an act of Congress passed to move the freak show away from military funerals.

    Why thank you for telling us that. Perhaps you can provide some evidence that conservatives were piling on Phelps before he and his merry band of Baptists started demonstrating at military funerals. For example, I don’t recall conservatives “piling on” the Phelps gang when they demonstrated at Matthew Shepherd’s funeral. And I certainly don’t recall conservatives “piling on” the Phelps gang when they demonstrated at other funerals of gay people.

    I wonder whether this post is merely another example of revisionist history by a conservative sychophant.

  10. Just how many “gay funerals” did Phelps’ gang crash, Really Arrogant Jerk? And if they are so numerous, why didn’t the always smarmy MSM cover it? Perhaps because it was not in their template?

    Regards,
    Peter H.

  11. #10 Peter Hughes — June 30, 2006 @ 4:48 pm – June 30, 2006

    Just how many “gay funerals” did Phelps’ gang crash…

    I haven’t been keeping a tally. (I haven’t been keeping a tally of the number of funerals of servicemen that he has crashed either–have you?) But he wasn’t just crashing funerals of known or out gay people, for a number of years prior to the Shepherd funeral, he was also crashing funerals of people who died of AIDS–obviously on the assumption that they were gay–recall his signs “AIDS CURES FAGS.” He has also carried out and threatened demonstrations at resort towns that are friendly to gay people–such as Provincetown, MA, among other places.

    The point, which appears to have been lost on you, is that conservatives for the most part ignored the Phelpses’ activities until they started crashing funerals of servicemen killed in action. Obviously, for the most part, conservatives don’t particularly care when the Phelpses were attacking gay people, but servicemen are off limits. Somewhat selective attention, in my view.

    Really Arrogant Jerk

    My, oh, my, another childish rant from a conservative. On another conservative board, someone suggested that I go back to India. One gets to have a really thick skin when commenting on conservative boards.