1 2 3 4
#1324730
The_L
Wait--two consenting, non-married adults having sex is equivalent to bestiality to these people? Because that's what it sounds like.
8/24/2011 3:59:44 PM
#1324731
Fawful has seen God has a vagina on top of his penis
"On the left side of the page would be sodomy, lesbianism, bestiality, pedophilia, orgies and casual 'hookups'".
Wait. Is he hinting on something here?
"One objection to "gay marriage" is that, if homosexual commitments are to be called marriage, then there's no reason to deny marriage to any collection of people, animals, or other beings."
Despicable on so many leverls. 1) He's comparing gays with animals and plants (that bit of "if gay marriage is accepted then so is bestiality and pedophilia anything else") and 2) he denies the liberty to consenting adults to do whatever the fuck they want.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I don't have any problem with the vast majority of religious folks... I do have a problem with the people who think they have some right to try to impose their beliefs on others.
Organized religion is a sham and a crutch for weak-minded people who need strength in numbers. It tells people to go out and stick their noses in other people's business. I live by the golden rule: Treat others as you'd want them to treat you. The religious right wants to tell people how to live.
- (Both quotes by) Jesse Ventura
8/24/2011 4:03:33 PM
#1324733
mad the swine
"Way over on the right side all by themselves would be celibacy and marriage. "
Last I checked, if your marriage is like celibacy, that's grounds for divorce.
8/24/2011 4:05:20 PM
#1324748
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot
Marriage is a legal union between two consenting adults. So it can be between two people of opposite or the same sex. It does not cover anything involving animals, children or any other batshit crap you can come up with. In fact most of the batshit crap is a chargeable offense though it may be covered by a more general way like cruelty to animals.
Stop thinking so much about what others do behind closed doors, it's not healthy!
8/24/2011 4:40:58 PM
#1324749
\m/>_<\m/
um... dude, you're forgetting something: consent. as in, marriage between two consenting adults(read: human beings). not goats, cows, livestock, rodents, rhododendrons, or anything else. and if you accept polygamy as a concept, accept polyandry as a concept as well, bigot.
but that is not the point. the point is that no matter how you twist the english language, homosexuality is not bestiality.
8/24/2011 4:42:36 PM
#1324758
Philbert McAdamia
> celibacy and marriage. <
Fundie style.
8/24/2011 4:58:07 PM
#1324763
Arctic Knight
Homosexuality is not equal to bestiality. So long as all parties involved are informed consenting adults, then it is no one else's business what they do.
8/24/2011 5:05:34 PM
#1324764
tmarcl
This argument is that if the term "marriage" has no fixed meaning, then it has no fixed meaning. If you may revise the English language to suit your lusts, then on what basis can you say that others may not do the same?
You do realize that language is constantly evolving over time, right? The words we use now don't always have the same meanings they did centuries (hell, even decades) ago.
Beyond that, I'll tell you what, let's separate the religious aspect of marriage from the civil aspect. We'll let churches and other religious institutions define marriage however the hell they like, while the civil side (ie, the side that confers legal benefits) will be defined by the government.
Does that work for you? This way, everyone wins. Gays can get the rights they are entitled to as human beings, and you guys can continue to be close-minded bigots.
8/24/2011 5:08:12 PM
#1324769
Old Viking
And furthermore, yamma yamma yamma doo bop de doo.
8/24/2011 5:23:17 PM
#1324771
Raised by Horses
"Sodomy, lesbianism, bestiality, pedophilia, orgies and casual "hookups."
How about we throw in necrophilia and anthropophagy while we're at it? If you're going to go moronic, there's no point in doing it half-assed.
"This has been dismissed as a "slippery slope" argument, but it isn't."
You're right. It's not a slope, so much as a perfect 90° cliff. Y'see, slippery slope arguments usually start off with some reasonable inference and gradually slide down into illogical territory. You can't even manage that.
"But making nonsense of the language won't magically legitimize immorality."
It's worked pretty well for religion so far. "Oh, they didn't commit a massacre, they were carrying out the Lord's Work™. Oh, that wasn't child abuse, that was genuflection. Oh, the money's not for me, it's tribute unto our Lord.."
You get the picture.
8/24/2011 5:36:52 PM
#1324778
Mrs. Antichrist
Argument destroyed in one word: "Consent".
8/24/2011 5:54:24 PM
#1324781
Professor M
@ Raised by Horses --
I read that as "anthropology" at first.
...of course, given that anthropology actually involves considering people on their own terms, the Christianists probably consider anthropology evil, too.
8/24/2011 5:58:27 PM
#1324782
Kevin Klawitter
I don't really want to give them ideas, but I say if they want to try to prove this "slippery slope", a female fundie should go to a state where gay marriage is valid and try to get a marriage certified between her and God.
It'd make a fun story, if nothing else.
8/24/2011 5:59:34 PM
#1324794
John
This argument is that if the term "marriage" has no fixed meaning, then it has no fixed meaning.
It has a fixed meaning. It just isn't the one you agree with. In civil law, it's a legal and financial arrangement defined by the State. Churches may define it any way they like according to their own beliefs, but that has no effect on civil law. So if the Roman Catholic church wants to declare anyone not married in the Catholic faith to be unmarried and living in sin, that's their privilege. But they can't tell civil law to deny them adoption or medical coverage or inheritance rights.
8/24/2011 6:18:28 PM
#1324800
Noneofyourbusiness
"If we were to write down all the sexual arrangements — excuse me, "lifestyles" — that could be named, and then organize them by similarity, marriage and homosexual behavior would be about as far apart on the paper as we could place them"
Buzz. Wrong. Only a warped mind would accept that as making sense.
"Way over on the right side all by themselves would be celibacy and marriage."
Celibacy and marriage are alike? You don't give the impression of being vaguely familiar with reality.
"One objection to "gay marriage" is that, if homosexual commitments are to be called marriage, then there's no reason to deny marriage to any collection of people, animals, or other beings. Once the paradigm is about "rights" being "denied," rather than qualifications being recognized, there is no logical limit to the differences that can be declared "equal." "
People are not making it up when they say rights are being denied. Under your system, a man has the right to marry a woman and a woman does not, a woman has the right to marry a man and a man does not. Sex discrimination, plain and simple. It is not about creating any new rights not already inherent in the institution.
"This argument is that if the term "marriage" has no fixed meaning, then it has no fixed meaning."
Why is it so hard for you to comprehend that marriage retains a fixed meaning given marriage equality? That meaning is "life-partnership between two consenting adults".
8/24/2011 6:44:23 PM
#1324801
JSS
Polygamy is higher than homosexuality because it was allowed in the Bible eh?
Then, in your view, infanticide must be more moral than consentual intimacy between two of the same sex. God commits this crime several times in the Old Testament. You must be more tolerant of, say, the ravaging of pregnant mothers and smashings to death of their infants than a gay couple living a peaceful life hurting nobody.
Surely you and like-mindeds can't be this crazy... can you?
Wait, what am I talking about? I'm asking that question to groups of people so loony in the 'anti-gay' that they went as far to suggest African American slave families owned by white plantations, able to be sold at whim, had it better family-wise then than today with gay marriage on the table. I think the answer is clear.
8/24/2011 6:45:03 PM
#1324803
Noneofyourbusiness
Also, this person seems to be behind on the times if he thinks "lifestyle" is the current politically correct buzzword. "Lifestyle" implies that sexual orientation is a choice, and others homosexual relationships from heterosexual ones.
8/24/2011 6:46:22 PM
#1324810
The difference between homosexuality and all of those other things, genius, is that one is born with one's sexual orientation, just like one is born right or left handed. All of those other things are, in fact, choices or aquired tastes/behavior.
8/24/2011 7:10:30 PM
#1324818
I Read About The Afterlife
Why would lesbianism be separated from homosexuality?
Also there is a reason why we can deny marriage to animals and objects. It's called Informed Consent, bro.
8/24/2011 7:44:59 PM
#1324819
The activities on the "left side" of his list is strictly amateur stuff. Celibacy is chief of the perversions.
8/24/2011 7:49:08 PM
#1324820
Sasha
@Mabus,
Once more, with clarity.
And don't use
separate
lines
to try to make your ravings
***************************
DRAMATIC.
8/24/2011 7:50:45 PM
#1324821
Professor M
This argument is that if the term "marriage" has no fixed meaning, then it has no fixed meaning.
Um...is Mr. Popp unclear on how language works? I mean, like, really, really unclear? Society will fall apart if definitions of words aren't held constant by government decree?
8/24/2011 7:50:56 PM
#1324822
DevilsChaplain
I'm surprised they let Mabus near a goddamn computer again. What with him being arrested and all...
8/24/2011 8:04:49 PM
#1324827
mnkittel
"Yes, polygamy was condoned in the Old Testament, but if we take time to read the narratives we'll learn that it invariably brought alarming consequences."
Right. Like that whole "twelve tribes of Israel" thing.
8/24/2011 8:36:04 PM
#1324831
gravematter
"This argument is that if the term "marriage" has no fixed meaning, then it has no fixed meaning. If you may revise the English language to suit your lusts, then on what basis can you say that others may not do the same?"
So would you be OK with gay marriage if we called it something else, like "darriage"? It never ceases to amaze me how many fundies try to back up their bile with petty semantic niggles.
8/24/2011 9:00:23 PM
1 2 3 4