you are implying that we override all moral standards of living just so homsexuals can spread Aids, leave poopy condoms everywhere, have anal sex in front of innocent children. If we set this example for children and call it "very good" we tell them that a man and a woman do not need to breed to continue humanity. How many more churches have to be burnt down before you liberals finally get it?
61 comments
MD20/20 - I hope you mean "stigma". "public stigmata" would be something more along the lines of stabbing your hands and feet in public. ;-)anywhere or have sex in front of children. Methinks that this poster knows no out homosexuals at all and thus is basing his opinion entirely on anecdotal "evidence" from similarly-minded people who also don't know any actual homosexuals. Hooray groupthink!
You can't have it both ways, the theory is that gay marriage shouldn't be legalized because only 2% of the population is gay. You're making a fuss totally out of proportion for 2%, or maybe you think if we're legal we'll turn everybody gay? BTW I lived in Chicago's Boystown for many years and never have I seen a discarded 'poopy condom' Can't begin to count the number of used diapers those breeders leave lying around after they change their kids. Idle curiosity compels me to ask when was there ever a church burned down by a pack of rampaging gays, as opposed to gays bashed by rampaging fundies.
"you are implying that we override all moral standards of living just so homsexuals can spread Aids, leave poopy condoms everywhere, have anal sex in front of innocent children."all moral standards.
And, accepting homosexuality is not done "just so homsexuals can spread AIDS."
If ones condoms are coming out "poopy" you need a hygene lesson or two. Only disgusting slobs, gay or straight, leave used condoms lying around.
Only digusting perverts, gay or straight, have sex, anal or any other kind, in front of children, innocent or otherwise.
"If we set this example for children and call it "very good" we tell them that a man and a woman do not need to breed to continue humanity."
There are plenty of heterosexuals in the world to keep the species going. In fact, over-population is a real problem, not under-population.
"How many more churches have to be burnt down before you liberals finally get it?"
You're burning down churches to send an anti-gay, anti-abortion message? That is remarkably stupid.
Thirding MD and Prager. "Scratch a homophobe and you'll find a closet case" has been scientifically demonstrated. Ergo, all these "200% heterosexuals" are convinced that anyone who doesn't insist on his heterosexuality as loudly and as frequently as they do must be even less heterosexual than they. Therefore, if we let gays out of the closet, men will stop pretending to be heterosexual and the species will die out. QED.they "think" without having bashed my head against a wall recently.)
Incubusion, our next project will be to insert yaoi manga into a bunch of Jack Chick tracts.
@MD20/20
Maybe they are not very secure in their own sexuality and think the lifting of the public stigma will push them over the edge.
@Nekhbet
Idle curiosity compels me to ask when was there ever a church burned down by a pack of rampaging gays, as opposed to gays bashed by rampaging fundies.
<<< you are implying that we override all moral standards of living >>>
Origen, we in the Association for the Humane Treatment of Straw Men firmly believe that all straw men, gay or straight, are entitled to be left alone and not shred to pieces to support your arguments. Many people restrict themselves solely to rational arguments, and change their opinions when there are no good arguments for their point. Even if you do not wish to do this, there are other fallacies you can use, which are more humane. Many creationists like using arguments from ignorance, while homophobes often prefer slippery slopes and false dilemmas such as "we must ban gay marriage or we must ban heterosexual marriage."
you are implying that we override all moral standards of living... favor of discrimination, now, are we?
...just so homsexuals can spread Aids, leave poopy condoms everywhere, have anal sex in front of innocent children.
Shock tactics. You're trying to arouse audience anger by shocking them with disgusting imagery and grotesque straw men. What you're doing is irrational, and also very cruel. I'm a member of the AHTSM myself, and oppose such battery of our straw friends. I'm also an employee of the Acme Corporation, so I'd be happy to sell you some Acme Slip-O Butter if you'd like to try the more humane slippery slope fallacy.
If we set this example for children and call it "very good" we tell them that a man and a woman do not need to breed to continue humanity.
C'mere! C'mon! Good conclusion! Just follow me! Please? Damn, it won't follow. How does tolerating homosexuals mean teaching that reproduction is unimportant to the survival of the species?
How many more churches have to be burnt down before you liberals finally get it?
When you can't win through reason, try fear.
Absolutely correct apart from the moral standards, 'homsexuals', Aids, poopy condoms, anal sex, innocent children, example setting, lack of breeding and church arson.
Yeah I know what you mean, I was walking through the park with my toddler child and these two guys were shamelessly bumming each other. I then walked along the main street and they surrounded me penetrating each other chanting "very good, very good, this is very good" and tried to rub their gay genes on me. It's awfully common, it must come to a stop.
I we liberals don't "get" it, eventually, they'll be out of churches and this can all end. So repeat after me, "I don't get it."
OK, first, you can't "override" a "moral standard" because all moral standards are personal and subjective. The only way one could be "overridden" is if the individual in question personally holds that standard and then personally violates it. What you should have said is : Are you implying that we force everyone to hold to a specific subjective moral standard." Say what you mean.
Hmm. I'm going to assume Origen is talking about the idea of homosexuals being allowed to marry.
In that case, I'll offer a refresher course in reality:
Also, last time I checked, the average description of homosexuality to kids (when it comes up... which is almost "never") is: "there are two daddys (or two mommies) and they love each other like mommy and daddy do." It seems to end there. Kids lose interest, topic wasn't endorsed, and everyone keeps on living like they did BEFORE the question was asked.
Am I the only person not surprised?
How many more churches have to be burnt down before you liberals finally get it?
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
