[Does it matter to you whether or not gay people marry or are able to enter into civil unions? Yes or no?]
First, I refuse to accept the abominable perversion of the once-wonderful word, gay. Homosexuality is anything but gay. To the question, yes, it matters, because the queers demand that the definition of marriage that has been the societal norm for thousands of years be corrupted to accommodate sexual deviancy. Marriage is a union between one man and one woman. Anything else is aberrant.
Warping the definition to cater to butt-buddies and dildo-dykes is totally unacceptable.
[Does it matter to gay people whether or not they are able to marry or enter into civil unions? Yes or no?]
Aside from the insatiable fag activists, no, it does not. Read on.
30 comments
To the question, yes, it matters, because the queers demand that the definition of marriage that has been the societal norm for thousands of years be corrupted to accommodate sexual deviancy.
We mustn't change the time-honored definition of marriage. Marriage is, and must always be, the union of a man and one or more wives, concubines, rape victims, POW sex slaves, and daughters of other men who have fallen on hard times financially, as long as they're all of the same race and religion. Anything else will destroy civilization as we know it.
Yeah, next thing you know, they'll wanna change marriage to allow those darkies to marry the white women, too! Oh, and Doc, what was the Dowry for your wife, hmmm?
EDIT: Damn, beaten by Doctor Whom, and far more succinctly.
"Marriage is a union between one man and one woman. Anything else is aberrant."
It wasn't defined that way in Europe until 1566 or so. Until then there was no definition, the church considered it a private matter and you didn't even have to have a priest or witnesses.
Stick that in your pipe and smoke it, asshole.
"Warping the definition to cater to butt-buddies and dildo-dykes is totally unacceptable."
The definition depends both on the time and place. There are still societies today that would find it quite bizarre to only have a single wife. To them, you would be "warping the definition" of marriage.
Now, shut the fuck up and get back in your hole.
To the question, yes, it matters, because the queers demand that the definition of marriage that has been the societal norm for thousands of years be corrupted to accommodate sexual deviancy.
Gay marriage is an older practice than you think. Several Roman Emperors had gay lovers, and some of them went as far as to even get married with them. Nero (3768) was the first one to marry, to a man called Sporus, and Elagabalus (c.203222) married an athlete called Zoticus. So, gay marriage is practically as old as Christian marriage, and people who support gay marriage are just supporting a 2000-year-old tradition.
Yeah, like FreeConservatives know anything about homosexuality.
I dare say they'll have a few people on the inside.
It's a good thing the opinions of some guy on FreeConservatives are worth practically nothing. Poor DD. It must suck to see all of these black people and gay people running around free and happy, and being powerless to stop them. If his views weren't so immoral, I might feel sorry for him.
First, I refuse to accept the abominable perversion of the once-wonderful word, gay. Homosexuality is anything but gay.
But it's fabulous!
Marriage is a union between one man and one woman. Anything else is aberrant.
Including divorce, which is much favored by fundies!
"First, I refuse to accept the abominable perversion of the once-wonderful word, gay. Homosexuality is anything but gay." You sound as though you're ignorant of the history of how "gay" came to mean "homosexual."
But that's not surprising, because ignorance of history is a prerequisite for being a Fundie. Whether it's believing that Genesis is an accurate account of the history of life on Earth, or believing that the Founding Fathers practiced the same brand of Biblical literalism that you do, or even thinking that "In God We Trust" has always been on American money, actual historical fact is something you guys just don't want to have to mess with.
Seigi no Mikata, let's not go down the road of using Roman emperors as examples of anything but "people who did really fucked up shit because power corrupts and so does lead in the water supply." That being said, I agree with the general concept that if people really looked at what "traditional" marriage was, they wouldn't get "one man and one woman who fell in love," they'd get a variety of different configurations of men and women and cynical political motivations.
How about we call all secular ceremonies "civil unions" and all church ceremonies "marriages" and give both the same rights under the law. That way marriage would only be for you holy uptight assholes.
Personally I'd be fine with that.
> First, I refuse to accept the abominable perversion of the once-wonderful word, gay.
Oh how the English language has been corrupted. Back when I was a lad, 'gay' meant 'screaming queer'.
Get a life.
Anon-e-moose
tl;dr, Duckturd Dumb.
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.
