TheMackQuigleyReport. #fundie

TheMackQuigleyReport. #fundie mackquigley.wordpress.com

For as long as Whites and Blacks lived side by side in the United States, there have been laws on the books forbidding miscegenation. In those days adultery and fornication and sodomy were all also illegal. At least 95% of the people had no problem with these laws – they simply married somebody of their own race and stayed faithful. And getting a divorce was difficult – you were expected to remain in the lifetime commitment you had made.

Well those “brilliant” legal minds who sit as the black robed judges in America decided to throw out all the laws criminalizing adultery, fornication, sodomy, and race-mixing – and made divorce as simple as filling out a form. What possible rationale did these crazy judges offer to justify these acts of absolute lunacy? In a word: RIGHTS.

According to the Supreme Court of the United States, everyone has the “fundamental right” to copulate with anybody else. Two sodomites who continued to fornicate even after the police caught them in the act, must not only be charged with no crime – they deserve “respect” according to SCOTUS.

According to SCOTUS it is “cruel and unusual punishment” to execute a sick monster who rapes a little baby. That would be against his “Constitutional rights” so his sentence must be commuted.

The homos are demanding full “marriage equality” as they term their aberrant notion of sodomites “marrying” other sodomites, and lesbians “marrying” other lesbians. What is their precedent for demanding such a thing?

42 comments

old comment by Swede

Firstly; NOBODY is saying that people have the right to rape children! In order to have sex with someone, you need that person's informed consent beforehand. Only adults can give informed consent. Children have the RIGHT to be free from sexual, physical and emotional abuse, and should be cared for with love, compassion and intelligence.

Secondly; the laws you describe in the beginning of your text kept women locked in loveless and abusive marriages. And the laws weren't as "perfect" as you seem to believe. Slave owners could decide who their slaves "married" and could then sell off the slaves to different parts of the country, never to see their "spouse" again.

The precedent is that consenting opposite-gender couples have the right to marry; then consenting same-gender couples ought to have the same right. A man has the right to marry a woman, a woman ought to have that same right.

Murdering a human being is a cruel and unusual punishment, or rather it ought to be.

old comment by dionysus

What is their precedent for demanding such a thing?

The Constitution. And the fact that we live in a Constitutional Republic that has taken, as an axiom, the protection of the minority from the whims of the majority. So, you can't deny someone the right to marry a black person just because that person is black, you can't deny someone the right to privacy just because they are gay, you can't deny a woman the right to marry a woman just because the partner happens to be a woman, and you can't deny Episcopalians and Unitarian Universalists the right to perform gay marriage ceremonies just because your sect doesn't acknowledge them. You have racial, sexual orientation, gender, and religious discrimination as part of your platform. Any wonder the Supreme Court keeps taking away your toys?

old comment by GigaGuess

Two sodomites who continued to fornicate even after the police caught them in the act, must not only be charged with no crime they deserve “respect” according to SCOTUS.
You are deliberately insinterpreting this. If two guys are caught fucking in a park, they should be charged. With Public Indecency, just like any straight couple. To tack Sodomy charges on is blatant discrimination, though. As would be charging someone whose only crime was having sex in their own home, where the ony harm is to your delicate sensibiities knowing there are gay guys out tehre with the nerve to have sex, and the unmitigated gall to enjoy it, too.

The homos are demanding full “marriage equality” as they term their aberrant notion of sodomites “marrying” other sodomites, and lesbians “marrying” other lesbians. What is their precedent for demanding such a thing?
The fact that marriage exists, and enshrines a number of rights that are denied a gay couple such as the right to joint file taxes, the right to be considerd next of kin, the right to get Social Security benefits in case of a partner's untimely demise, just as you get. It has fuck all to do with religion, just as your outrage has little to do with it, too, and more to do with anything to make the gays miserable.

old comment by

Homosexuality is not correlated with pedophilia, so there is no possibility of a causal relationship between the two. However, there is a definite relationship between celibate Catholic priesthood and pedophilia. Is there a causal relationship? I don't know. But what happens to all the devout catholic boys when they realize they are gay? They can't bear the thought of being married to a woman. What's more, they are convinced that being gay is a sin. Do they choose the priesthood as a way of solving both problems? Unfortunately, the human sex drive cannot go unsatisfied. Sex is like eating, drinking, or sleeping - your body requires it. Those who cannot engage in socially acceptable sexual activity inevitably engage in deviant sexual activity.

old comment by JeanP

Mack Quigley should learn about the concept of personnal liberty, whoch means that, as long as the two persons are consenting and that nobody is harmed, it shouldn't be inlawful: fornication, sodomy and misgenation shouldn't be punished at all and adultery should be punished only by an at-fault divorce and/or civil penalties (tort).
No-fault divorces have been created to help couples who didn't want to stay together anymore, reduce the rate of domestic violence and murder, and stopping laywers to create legal fictions by making their clients parjure in open court.

As for the part where you speak about the Kennedy ruling: I read this ruling and thought its foundations, the arguments about the proportionnality, very shacky; even though my opinion about death penalty goes between opposed and neutral, I think the legislatures should be left to determine the proportionnality of punishments with respect to the crimes and that, if he Supreme Court ruled capital punishment constitutional in Gregg then this principe should be extended to the death penalty.

old comment by MackQuigley

Did anyone read the remainder of my commentary before they commented?

Those who claimed I misstated SCOTUS' decisions were wrong. In Lawrence v. Texas the men kept buggering each other even after the police arrived and told them to stop. The sodomites were exonerated by the SCOTUS in a decision that said these deviants were "entitled to respect".

And in Kennedy v. Louisiana the defendant raped a little 8 year old girl, but SCOTUS ruled that the death penalty for child rapists is "cruel and unusual" and overturned his death sentence.

Such "rights" are NOT in the Constitution and it gives SCOTUS no authority to invent "rights" by judicial fiat.

As I sated in my commentary, the term "rights" is a tautology - a grandiose way for people to justify what they want to do by pretending nobody can stop them. That's 100% wrong - you have no "right" to do anything except die when someone puts a loaded gun to your head. Everyone with "rights" is simply hoping the government will give them permission to do what they want to do.

No sodomite has the "right" to buggery - he is only getting away with it due to the great numbers of sex perverts in government who refuse to enforce proper laws.