Remember that Margaret Somerville rant I had twice that I never got back to because of stupid school and lack of continuity? Well I'm back... kinda. This is my birthday present, ranting against an annoying bitch of which I have vast and probably intense disagreements with on both an ideological sense, and on pretty much every other thing I can't think of at this moment because I still hate the fact that I'm turning 20 in just a few more hours (Reminds me of Majora's Mask actually, stupid Kafei). But my transition from one second to another second aside, I want to feel better about myself. Thus, Part 3 of the possibly ongoing rants against Margaret "I'm not a homophobe, I just don't want them to have the same rights as me" Somerville. 
 
Now, you probably already guessed what I'm talking about. That's right, cheese... no wait, secularism. Can't believe I got that wrong. The whole secularism debate is very tricky, in a way that totally isn't tricky at all. Every time a social conservative argues an idiotic point while claiming they are secular, I raise an eyebrow, and then the other because I can't actually raise only one. Are their arguments based upon old ideology? Are their arguments presuming that society is fixed in culture? Are their arguments that fucking stupid? These three questions come up, and are imperative in finding out if they are secular, and it's quite easy in this case because one calls bullshit very quickly. Why? Gay marriage debate, and I have an article so I don't have to read through that FUCKING BOOK ever again. Now, where did I raise the eyebrows first? Well, where I got the article, The Catholic Education Resource Center. Okay, technically she did not publish it there, but there is something about this that is weird. Christians who are also social conservatives won't take steps to learn anything. So any real secular knowledge they hear won't be listened to, because they don't understand it (And refuse to). They post this article because the ideology in it is very familiar, and very... Christian. Reproduction, culture, I'm sorry but these two things have no place in the secular field, because they are purely Christian in nature. And also bullshit. 
 
Second eyebrows came up in the specific part called "Attributing Homophobia". Now, here's something you should ponder. Do you ever pre-emptively introduce yourself to a neighbor by stating "I'm your non-racist neighbor who does not go to klan rallies and does not do bimonthly crossburnings"? Obviously not, and for good reason. Now, why would she have a very specific part in her article dispelling claims that she is a homophobe (Also not an anti-semite)? And another question, why would UKIP do the exact same thing? But UKIP is another story altogether (Brits should care about their racist ideology though). She immediately talks about ad hominems, and then ends it right there. Note, she doesn't actually dispel the claims, she just complains about it. Generally I'll support a logical fallacy dispel, but when the line of reasoning of calling her a homophobe is directly related with the fact that her arguments were taken from a homophobes playbook, she probably should not use that card. 
 
In terms of points, she makes, we must understand two things. One, they are Christian implicitly, and two they are homophobic in source. The first point she makes is that marriage promotes creation of human life. If you did not scream bullshit the second you read that, read it again. Now, how many ways can we dispel this? Many actually. First being that I'm pretty damn sure the human race managed to promote creation of life before religion or even marriage (Oh yea, marriage happened before religion), after all we are here are we not? Second, married couples don't all have kids or can have kids. These are the obvious ones, but her argument is essentially already devolved into the appeal to tradition (Hey look, I can call out logical fallacies as well!). So already, this is a bullshit point. Her second point (And ignore the fact that she has an entire rant after the previous point I pointed out, it is a continuation of the first) is that same-sex marriage will harm the religious and restrict their freedoms. 
 
If you didn't call massive bullshit on that, read it once more. That's right, her second point against same-sex marriage is that it harms the religious. Now there are many reasons for this argument to go fuck itself. But that shall be unspoken, because I don't want to say the obvious of something we both know. So again, right-wing ethics are bullshit. My whole feeling regarding this can be summed up in two words, right after a quote FTFA.