I think homosexuality is the main issue that they ["secular humanist libtards"] will hammer on. Bestiality, possibly decriminalize it, but not much more than that. The reason for choosing homosexuality is because you can pretty much imitate divorce by sticking fairly “intelligent” or “consenting” individuals together, and have a decent shot at improving the image. Plus the specific homosexual behaviors do the best job at offending whatever traditional religions are out there. Polygamy is likely to be a far more immediate issue. The main step there is getting measures to not force divorces of polygamous immigrants.
45 comments
So polygamy, as a marriage imbalanced on gender is acceptable, but... homosexual marriage as a marriage also imbalanced on gender isn't?
Wat.
How about we just get government out of the business of regulating marriage between consenting adults in the first place.
"The reason for choosing homosexuality is because you can pretty much imitate divorce by sticking fairly “intelligent” or “consenting” individuals together, and have a decent shot at improving the image."
Can someone tell me what this sentance means? I mean, other than "Morpheus2009 is a dim, confused and sad individual."
"Bestiality, possibly decriminalize it, but not much more than that."
I wonder what Neal Horsley would say about that...
"The reason for choosing homosexuality is because you can pretty much imitate divorce by sticking fairly “intelligent” or “consenting” individuals together, and have a decent shot at improving the image."
What????????? I honestly don't understand what you're trying to say here.
"Polygamy is likely to be a far more immediate issue."
Well, the Bible is fine with polygamy. Are you saying that god is wrong?
"The main step there is getting measures to not force divorces of polygamous immigrants."
What????? You must be the most incoherent person on here this year. Please try to make sense next time.
A polygamous immigrant from Skye,
Wants to hit you with a pie.
I told him he could,
If only he would,
Aim for your offended eye.
Makes as much sense as your rant, douchbag.
It's very telling that, without fail, conservitards always bring up bestiality, pedophilia, polygamy, or incest whenever discussing homosexuality. Pretty telling, really.
Sorry, I'm no Liberal, I'm a Socialist. Liberals will hate me just as much as you Conservatards hate Liberals. At least almost as much...
Homosexuality means nothing really to me, as I'm heterosexual and have been together with my now husband for almost 24 years. We've "only" been married for about 14 years, though.
I see no big diff in heterosexual and homosexual behaviors, really. Both want to find the Right One, live together Happily Ever After and form a family.
Oops, sorry. This is Swede.
I'm sorry, but this makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. How does "allowing gays to marry" equate to improving the image of divorce?
Also, what polygamous immigrants?
Trying out my fundie-to-sane translator on some of the trickier passages.
"The reason for choosing homosexuality is because you can pretty much imitate divorce by sticking fairly “intelligent” or “consenting” individuals together, and have a decent shot at improving the image."
"Them queer marriages aren't real marriages, but they look like them because they consist of consenting adults in love with each other, so sane people won't have a problem with it."
"Polygamy is likely to be a far more immediate issue. The main step there is getting measures to not force divorces of polygamous immigrants."
"Them heathen liberals will try to push polygamy by trying to preserve the polygamous marriages of them evil job-stealing immigrants."
"Bestiality, possibly decriminalize it"
You know there are a good number of liberals like myself who like animals more than most humans, and you know what?? BEASTIALITY IS A FORM OF FUCKING RAPE!!!! AND ONLY SICKOS THINK RAPE IS A GOOD THING!!!!
I love animals, enough that I went vegetarian. I'm also gay. Let me assure you, I would never in a million years even consider bestiality(sp?). It's disgusting to take advantage of someone who doesn't understand and can't consent. There isn't anything in all of reality that would change that for me.
WRT bestiality, the "consent" argument just doesn't make sense. Sure, an animal wouldn't be able to actually vocalise its acquiescence, but on the other hand I would imagine they have some very persuasive ways of saying "no".
Further, the idea that while it is acceptable to kill and eat animals (under what can be horrific conditions), but unacceptable to fuck them strikes me as a ludicrous double standard. Especially considering the vaster asymmetries of power involved - animals subject to bestiality usually only have to deal with individual humans with a specific sexual paraphilia, whereas animals reared for meat are completely powerless against the might of the agricultural-industrial complex.
If there are better arguments, I'd like to hear them, because I think it's ridiculous to just lazily transfer arguments against sex with children, where they actually carry weight, to arguments against sex with animals, without regard for the logical consequences. Animals are not children and vice versa.
I had to go to Free Republic and see this quote in context to figure out the meaning. This is the post Morpheus2009 was replying to:
"Secular humanist libtards want to be able to prove that certain alternative lifestyles such as homosexuality are legitimate because they are biologically determined from birth. If they succeed with homosexuality, then pedophilia and incest is next on their list." - MJP
Basically, what Morpheus is claiming is that "secular humanist libtards" are consciously trying to set up a big sociological experiment by legalizing all kinds of lifestyles that supposedly aren't compatible with traditional Christian views (not true for pedophilia, polygamy & incest). And we're starting with gay marriage because it's the most sensible proposal (d'oh). Also, we're apparently doing it for the lulz we're getting out of offending the theists. Oh, and he put 'intelligent' and 'consenting' between quote signs to emphasize his idea that gays aren't fully human, of course. The part with the polygamist foreigners he just threw in there to stroke the xenophobia of his buddies (ignoring that the most obvious proponents of polygamy are American Mormons, not immigrants).
That's right, it's all about you. It's all calculated to annoy you. Issues are not discussed because they affect people or are unfair, it's because they know what you, personally, find distasteful and wish to make you uncomfortable.
Because you are just that important.
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.