Get updates from Friendly Atheist delivered straight to your inbox
Comedian Patton Oswalt just released his new stand-up album “Finest Hour“:
I’ve only gotten through the first half so far, but I love this clip 🙂 In it, Oswalt talks about gay marriage, the Bible, and religious thinking — the language is NSFW:
That is most excellent!
Proof once again that comedians are truth tellers (dare I say “soothsayers”? oh no, that would sound biblical)…
Loved this clip.
LOL! Awesome. And true.
Patton Oswalt is my hero!!
That’s great! Just bought the MP3 album. “You gotta respect everyone’s beliefs. … No you don’t!” Hahaha… YES!
Except “It grosses me out” isn’t a valid argument at all…
“It grosses me out” IS a valid argument; it means that you are being harmed in some way by the practice. As Oswalt says we’d have to debate that – but it would be a really short debate. You’d answer it with: “It is trumped by the right to pursue happiness, the First Amendment, the implicit right of free association, the greater harm principle, etc.
Oswalt brings up a point which many people are confused about. The fact that many people think that all beliefs should be respected. What if someone believes children should work in coal mines or that women are subhuman. We are supposed to acknowledge that these ideas existe, yet respect is a whole different matter, and must be earned.
It’s not really an argument against gay marriage as such. It’s an argument against that person getting one him- or herself. Or more accurately, against having gay sex
This routine is even funnier if you picture Remy delivering it…
He’s not saying it’s an argument per se, he’s saying it would be at the very least a “reason” why a straight person might be opposed to gay marriage (albeit not a convincing one to be sure) BUT, it is at least understandable (if not defensible) compared to the thinking that so-called laws and rules found in an ancient book written by very parochial bronze-aged “wise men” claiming to be privy to the word of a mythological strong man, are stone-cold laws. Get it?
“any Saw fans out there?” was my favorite line.
His exact words: “That would be a valid argument! We would actually have to debate you on that!”
Chances are, you aren’t being harmed by the practice. For instance; if a hypochondriac is grossed out that everyone doesn’t bleach their seats every time they’re finished sitting [which would not protect us from disease and would expose us to bleach fumes constantly], are WE harming HIM, or is HE harming HIMSELF? Clearly it’s the latter; bowing down to false beliefs helps no one, least of all the believer.
To conclude; there are many very positive/neutral things in life that people are “grossed out” by, but it is entirely incorrect to say that those positive/neutral things are causing the harm [broccoli? ewww!]. But unlike a neurotic like a hypochondriac, most people only need a little bit of exposure to these things to realize they’re not all that icky.
So don’t think for a second that gay couples are “harming” people, even in the clearly limited sense you’re talking about. Those people are choosing to harm themselves. Acceptance is as easy as thinking for yourself.
Um, it’s a comedy bit. But the point is still valid. He’s making it from the perspective of a person who is against gay marriage. The same argument could be applied to hetro people and different sexual positions “I wouldn’t do that…”
Adding this album to my list need to get. Comedy at it’s finest.
And his point is valid, from the perspective of those who are against gay marriage. He spells it out very well, all the while being a clever comedy routine.
Patton Oswalt reminds me of George Carlin.
Regarding the comment “that’s a valid argument:”
I disagree, but I think (and perhaps this is what Oswalt meant) that “it grosses me out” is a legitimate TYPE of argument over which we can have a reasonable debate.
Another argument in this category is that mixed-gender couples are necessary or optimum or child-rearing. This argument, like the first is terrifically unimpressive. However, if it WERE true, it might merit further investigation/discussion.
I think Oswalt was trying to distinguish reasonable types of objections (concern for someone’s health/welfare/sexual satisfaction) from fatuous arguments (Bum-fuddling makes baby Jesus cry).
“This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Viacom.”