Home Archives Random Quotes Latest Comments Top 100 Submit Quote Search Log In

Quote# 69968

Since the Supreme Court ruled that mothers can murder their babies then it's only natural they could rule that sexual perverts could get married. And of course, group marriages would come next, then first cousins, then brothers and sisters. Then all marriages accepted thereby destroying the institution of marriage all together.

SUPPORT LOVE AND COMPASSION, NOT HOMOSEXUALITY!

Zionsfriend, Argue With Everyone 57 Comments [2/1/2010 1:45:39 PM]
Fundie Index: 53
Submitted By: DevilsChaplain
WTF?! || meh
Username:
Comment:



1 2 3
Paschal Wagner


2/1/2010 2:06:33 PM

MK

Wow, how did you manage to forget your favorite strawman, marrying your pet kitten?


2/1/2010 2:06:50 PM

RavenWood

Protect marriage? Ban divorce.

2/1/2010 2:08:05 PM

Doctor Whom

And then people of different races, and then some king and 700 wives and 300 concubines, and then where would the madness end?

2/1/2010 2:10:09 PM

Arts_Myth

Since the Catholic church has tacitly allowed its priests to molest children, then it's only natural they could allow them to molest each other. And of course, allowing priestly orgies would come next, then sex with nuns, then animals. Then all sexual conduct would be accepted, thereby improving the Church immensely.

Woo! I can do non-sequitur slippery slopes too!

2/1/2010 2:11:40 PM

Doubting Thomas

Nobody can murder babies. Women can, however, remove clumps of cells from their uterus as a matter of medical procedure.

But I love the slippery slope. However, I didn't see you including marrying animals like fundies usually use.

Oh yeah, and hetersexuals getting divorced does more to hurt the traditional view of marriage more than gay marriage ever would.

2/1/2010 2:13:09 PM

Turtle

Oh my god, if I let kids from across the street be in my club, then I'd have to let the ones down the street in, and the ones on the corner, and the ones in the blue house. If I let everyone in my club, I wouldn't be super-special, and my club would be ruined!!! Wah!

2/1/2010 2:14:16 PM

Vegetable Rights Activist

Since the Supreme Court ruled that women can vote then it's only natural they could rule that people of different races could get married. And of course, group marriages would come next, then first cousins, then brothers and sisters. Then all marriages accepted thereby destroying the institution of marriage all together.

SUPPORT LOVE AND COMPASSION, NOT INTERRACIAL COUPLES!

Same shit, different decade.


2/1/2010 2:14:43 PM

aaa

This shit again? Get real.

2/1/2010 2:17:36 PM



The institution of marriage is not a sentient being, and quite frankly I am getting so that I don't give two shits what happens to it. And I'm straight, and married.

2/1/2010 2:21:23 PM

Mister Spak

"then first cousins, then brothers and sisters."

So you redstaters want to legalise your perversions?

2/1/2010 2:39:11 PM

Percy Q. Shunn

Another closeted sausage-jockey spouting off his denial.

Nothing to see here, folks. Move along.

2/1/2010 2:39:55 PM

Kevin Klaw

@Paschal Wagner

You win an internet,

2/1/2010 3:04:41 PM



Mothers can't murder their babies.

Women can, however, remove microscopic, parasitic cells from their bodies if they want to.

2/1/2010 3:09:26 PM



/SUPPORT LOVE AND COMPASSION, NOT HOMOSEXUALITY!/

Those two concepts are not exclusive, dimwit. I'm supporting love and compassion by showing love and compassion toward homosexuals: namely, by seeing and treating them as people and supporting their rights. What is so loving and compassionate about calling them "sexual perverts?"

@Paschal Wagner: Your maps were very interesting, but I thought that marriage between cousins WAS legal in West Virginia (on the second map, West Virginia is listed as one of the states that prohibits it). Isn't that kind of a running gag there?

2/1/2010 3:15:01 PM

tracer

Here, lemme put some more Astroglide on that slope for ya....

2/1/2010 3:25:59 PM

Sisyphus

Wouldn't a more effective way of protecting the "sanctity" of marriage be to just ban divorce? Or am I being obtuse?

0_o


2/1/2010 3:31:15 PM



I honestly don't see any problem with any of that, except of course the inbreeding thing, which every culture in the world views as taboo, with some reason.

If it involves informed consent, and isn't going to produce the unholy abominations so common in the deep south, then seriously, why not? And in fact I'd consider something allowing family to marry each other, too, perhaps if they agree to be rendered infertile somehow. I dunno, I need to think about it.

2/1/2010 3:45:33 PM

Zeus Almighty

"And of course, group marriages would come next"

... Said the person who thinks all one billion members of his cult are "brides of Christ."

2/1/2010 4:24:35 PM



A perversion is a distortion of the norm. Ergo, lots of sexual perverts get married all the time, straight and homosexual. Ever hear of kinky sex and fetishes?

Fact is, most perversions are harmless. And I do support love and compassion, hence why I'm all for allowing homosexuals who love each other to marry.

2/1/2010 4:41:38 PM



What's wrong with group marriages? The Bible clearly supports group marriages. Well.. as long as its a man with lots of women. For some reason women with lots of men or some other ratio is frowned upon.

2/1/2010 4:52:18 PM

CailinBan

But brothers and sisters marrying was okay when it was Adam and Eve's children doing it, right?

2/1/2010 5:33:34 PM

Old Viking

Where are the animals? Won't somebody think of the animals?

2/1/2010 5:35:00 PM

GigaGuess

SUPPORT LOVE AND COMPASSION, NOT HOMOSEXUALITY!
Only if it's love between a man and a woman, I see. Otherwise it's evil and should be done away with.

2/1/2010 5:55:54 PM




2/1/2010 6:22:54 PM
1 2 3