I was thinking about this the other day, this proliferation of the radical homosexual agenda almost simultaneously throughout the entire world.
22 comments
Things are getting tough for rednecks. First, countries eliminated slavery. Now they've stopped picking on gays. Next thing you know, they'll probably expect people to start loving their neighbors. Boy, won't that piss Jesus off!
in the end time it will be as it was in the days of Lot.
The Radical Homosexual Agenda
These people seriously think homosexuality is the worst thing in the world.
Fuck all of the dying/starving people in Africa. Fuck the oppressed people's of many of the southeast asian countries. Fuck the ever growing resentment of the US. TEH GAYS ARE COMING!!! NOTHING ELSE MATTERS! (oh, except abortion)
It's just too bizarre and co-incidental that this is happening all across the world at almost the exact same time
Telecommunications, moron. Your bible may not mention it, but it's existed for a while now.
'Almost everywhere you look, governments and or/judiciaries are imposing this upon what is for the most part an unwilling populace. '
Imposing? I was not aware of any government making homosexuality a requirement of its citizens.
First off, polygamy was the rule for most of human history. Which makes sense in evolutionary terms as it maximises the parental investment-payoff for both parties. Everyone assumes that couples have always gotten married much as we do today but the current assumption of couples of all classes getting married is only a couple of centuries old. Even after individual marriage became the rule, marriage was reserved mostly for the nobility and usually as a way of cementing alliances. The lower classes just shacked up together and children were raised by the extended family of parents, grandparents, uncles, aunts, etc (and research tells us that's still the method of child-raising that produces the best results). Again, people tend to assume that marriage was always as prevalent as it is now and people in the past were more religious than they are now but it's not true in either case. Marriage was very much the exception to the rule for most people and, while people of the past lived in a very religion-infused world, they probably gave the matter less day-to-day thought than we do.
Secondly, marriage was historically an exchange of property. The Code of Hammurabi, the oldest legal code we're aware of, treats marriage as akin to slavery. The modern custom of giving wedding presents evolved out of the exchange of doweries where the bride's family would pay the husband to take her (thereby taking responsibility for her care).
Thirdly, same-sex marriage is not new. Ancient Greece practiced same-sex marriage. So did Rome up until the Theodosian Code, two of the Roman Emperors, Nero and Elagabalus, married men. Parts of Ancient China practiced same-sex marriage and certain Native American tribes perform a cultural equivalent to this day. France practiced embrotherment (a cultural equivalent to marriage) until the late Medieval period. And, of course, many nations have legalised same-sex marriage around the world with no real social or religious upheaval.
So, yeah. That "radical" argument is nonsense. You may have seen the legitimate use about actual extremism or ideological radicalism and it actually has meaning in that context. Human rights taken as granted in many societies are obviously not radicalism. Just like acknowledging climate change is not apocalypticism or hysteria. But propagandists like to twist words and their context, especially when it's all they have left to make their flawed arguments.
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.
