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

Quote# 83406

If we were to write down all the sexual arrangements — excuse me, "lifestyles" — that could be named, and then organize them by similarity, marriage and homosexual behavior would be about as far apart on the paper as we could place them. On the left side of the page would be sodomy, lesbianism, bestiality, pedophilia, orgies and casual "hookups." Way over on the right side all by themselves would be celibacy and marriage.

On this continuum, polygamy would be closer to monogamous marriage than homosexual behavior would be. And I suppose I need to say here that I am not endorsing polygamy in the slightest. God created Adam, then formed Eve — not Eve, Rita, Mabel and Betty. Yes, polygamy was condoned in the Old Testament, but if we take time to read the narratives we'll learn that it invariably brought alarming consequences. The point is that, even when our Creator allowed polygamy, He condemned same-sex sex.

One objection to "gay marriage" is that, if homosexual commitments are to be called marriage, then there's no reason to deny marriage to any collection of people, animals, or other beings. Once the paradigm is about "rights" being "denied," rather than qualifications being recognized, there is no logical limit to the differences that can be declared "equal."

This has been dismissed as a "slippery slope" argument, but it isn't. On a slippery slope, polygamy would be much higher on the hill than the matrimony of two persons of the same sex. A slippery slope argument would be, If we allow one man to marry several women, it won't be long before one woman wants to marry several men. And if both of those are OK, what is to prevent two men from marrying two women? In that case, the two men are married to each other (as well as to the women), and we will have arrived at homosexual marriage. Going from "gay marriage" to polygamy would be moving up the moral slope. That is not this argument. This argument is that if the term "marriage" has no fixed meaning, then it has no fixed meaning. If you may revise the English language to suit your lusts, then on what basis can you say that others may not do the same? If a tail is henceforth to be called a leg, then a tongue surely is a kind of tail, and an ear will be discovered to be a tongue, and a dog is of course a rhinoceros.

But making nonsense of the language won't magically legitimize immorality.

Dan Popp, Renew America 81 Comments [8/24/2011 3:53:57 PM]
Fundie Index: 89
Submitted By: Rabbit of Caerbannog
WTF?! || meh
Username:
Comment:



1 2 3 4
The_L

Wait--two consenting, non-married adults having sex is equivalent to bestiality to these people? Because that's what it sounds like.

8/24/2011 3:59:44 PM

Fawful has seen God has a vagina on top of his penis

"On the left side of the page would be sodomy, lesbianism, bestiality, pedophilia, orgies and casual 'hookups'".

Wait. Is he hinting on something here?

"One objection to "gay marriage" is that, if homosexual commitments are to be called marriage, then there's no reason to deny marriage to any collection of people, animals, or other beings."

Despicable on so many leverls. 1) He's comparing gays with animals and plants (that bit of "if gay marriage is accepted then so is bestiality and pedophilia anything else") and 2) he denies the liberty to consenting adults to do whatever the fuck they want.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I don't have any problem with the vast majority of religious folks... I do have a problem with the people who think they have some right to try to impose their beliefs on others.

Organized religion is a sham and a crutch for weak-minded people who need strength in numbers. It tells people to go out and stick their noses in other people's business. I live by the golden rule: Treat others as you'd want them to treat you. The religious right wants to tell people how to live.

- (Both quotes by) Jesse Ventura

8/24/2011 4:03:33 PM

mad the swine

"Way over on the right side all by themselves would be celibacy and marriage. "

Last I checked, if your marriage is like celibacy, that's grounds for divorce.

8/24/2011 4:05:20 PM

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot

Marriage is a legal union between two consenting adults. So it can be between two people of opposite or the same sex. It does not cover anything involving animals, children or any other batshit crap you can come up with. In fact most of the batshit crap is a chargeable offense though it may be covered by a more general way like cruelty to animals.
Stop thinking so much about what others do behind closed doors, it's not healthy!

8/24/2011 4:40:58 PM

\m/>_<\m/

um... dude, you're forgetting something: consent. as in, marriage between two consenting adults(read: human beings). not goats, cows, livestock, rodents, rhododendrons, or anything else. and if you accept polygamy as a concept, accept polyandry as a concept as well, bigot.
but that is not the point. the point is that no matter how you twist the english language, homosexuality is not bestiality.

8/24/2011 4:42:36 PM

Philbert McAdamia

> celibacy and marriage. <

Fundie style.

8/24/2011 4:58:07 PM

Arctic Knight

Homosexuality is not equal to bestiality. So long as all parties involved are informed consenting adults, then it is no one else's business what they do.

8/24/2011 5:05:34 PM

tmarcl

This argument is that if the term "marriage" has no fixed meaning, then it has no fixed meaning. If you may revise the English language to suit your lusts, then on what basis can you say that others may not do the same?

You do realize that language is constantly evolving over time, right? The words we use now don't always have the same meanings they did centuries (hell, even decades) ago.

Beyond that, I'll tell you what, let's separate the religious aspect of marriage from the civil aspect. We'll let churches and other religious institutions define marriage however the hell they like, while the civil side (ie, the side that confers legal benefits) will be defined by the government.

Does that work for you? This way, everyone wins. Gays can get the rights they are entitled to as human beings, and you guys can continue to be close-minded bigots.

8/24/2011 5:08:12 PM

Old Viking

And furthermore, yamma yamma yamma doo bop de doo.

8/24/2011 5:23:17 PM

Raised by Horses

"Sodomy, lesbianism, bestiality, pedophilia, orgies and casual "hookups."

How about we throw in necrophilia and anthropophagy while we're at it? If you're going to go moronic, there's no point in doing it half-assed.

"This has been dismissed as a "slippery slope" argument, but it isn't."

You're right. It's not a slope, so much as a perfect 90° cliff. Y'see, slippery slope arguments usually start off with some reasonable inference and gradually slide down into illogical territory. You can't even manage that.

"But making nonsense of the language won't magically legitimize immorality."

It's worked pretty well for religion so far. "Oh, they didn't commit a massacre, they were carrying out the Lord's Work™. Oh, that wasn't child abuse, that was genuflection. Oh, the money's not for me, it's tribute unto our Lord.."

You get the picture.

8/24/2011 5:36:52 PM

Mrs. Antichrist

Argument destroyed in one word: "Consent".

8/24/2011 5:54:24 PM

Professor M

@ Raised by Horses --

I read that as "anthropology" at first.

...of course, given that anthropology actually involves considering people on their own terms, the Christianists probably consider anthropology evil, too.

8/24/2011 5:58:27 PM

Kevin Klawitter

I don't really want to give them ideas, but I say if they want to try to prove this "slippery slope", a female fundie should go to a state where gay marriage is valid and try to get a marriage certified between her and God.

It'd make a fun story, if nothing else.

8/24/2011 5:59:34 PM

John

This argument is that if the term "marriage" has no fixed meaning, then it has no fixed meaning.

It has a fixed meaning. It just isn't the one you agree with. In civil law, it's a legal and financial arrangement defined by the State. Churches may define it any way they like according to their own beliefs, but that has no effect on civil law. So if the Roman Catholic church wants to declare anyone not married in the Catholic faith to be unmarried and living in sin, that's their privilege. But they can't tell civil law to deny them adoption or medical coverage or inheritance rights.

8/24/2011 6:18:28 PM

Noneofyourbusiness

"If we were to write down all the sexual arrangements — excuse me, "lifestyles" — that could be named, and then organize them by similarity, marriage and homosexual behavior would be about as far apart on the paper as we could place them"

Buzz. Wrong. Only a warped mind would accept that as making sense.

"Way over on the right side all by themselves would be celibacy and marriage."

Celibacy and marriage are alike? You don't give the impression of being vaguely familiar with reality.

"One objection to "gay marriage" is that, if homosexual commitments are to be called marriage, then there's no reason to deny marriage to any collection of people, animals, or other beings. Once the paradigm is about "rights" being "denied," rather than qualifications being recognized, there is no logical limit to the differences that can be declared "equal." "

People are not making it up when they say rights are being denied. Under your system, a man has the right to marry a woman and a woman does not, a woman has the right to marry a man and a man does not. Sex discrimination, plain and simple. It is not about creating any new rights not already inherent in the institution.

"This argument is that if the term "marriage" has no fixed meaning, then it has no fixed meaning."

Why is it so hard for you to comprehend that marriage retains a fixed meaning given marriage equality? That meaning is "life-partnership between two consenting adults".

8/24/2011 6:44:23 PM

JSS

Polygamy is higher than homosexuality because it was allowed in the Bible eh?

Then, in your view, infanticide must be more moral than consentual intimacy between two of the same sex. God commits this crime several times in the Old Testament. You must be more tolerant of, say, the ravaging of pregnant mothers and smashings to death of their infants than a gay couple living a peaceful life hurting nobody.

Surely you and like-mindeds can't be this crazy... can you?



Wait, what am I talking about? I'm asking that question to groups of people so loony in the 'anti-gay' that they went as far to suggest African American slave families owned by white plantations, able to be sold at whim, had it better family-wise then than today with gay marriage on the table. I think the answer is clear.

8/24/2011 6:45:03 PM

Noneofyourbusiness

Also, this person seems to be behind on the times if he thinks "lifestyle" is the current politically correct buzzword. "Lifestyle" implies that sexual orientation is a choice, and others homosexual relationships from heterosexual ones.

8/24/2011 6:46:22 PM



The difference between homosexuality and all of those other things, genius, is that one is born with one's sexual orientation, just like one is born right or left handed. All of those other things are, in fact, choices or aquired tastes/behavior.

8/24/2011 7:10:30 PM

I Read About The Afterlife

Why would lesbianism be separated from homosexuality?

Also there is a reason why we can deny marriage to animals and objects. It's called Informed Consent, bro.

8/24/2011 7:44:59 PM



The activities on the "left side" of his list is strictly amateur stuff. Celibacy is chief of the perversions.

8/24/2011 7:49:08 PM

Sasha

@Mabus,

Once more, with clarity.

And don't use

separate

lines

to try to make your ravings

***************************

DRAMATIC.

8/24/2011 7:50:45 PM

Professor M

This argument is that if the term "marriage" has no fixed meaning, then it has no fixed meaning.

Um...is Mr. Popp unclear on how language works? I mean, like, really, really unclear? Society will fall apart if definitions of words aren't held constant by government decree?

8/24/2011 7:50:56 PM

DevilsChaplain

I'm surprised they let Mabus near a goddamn computer again. What with him being arrested and all...

8/24/2011 8:04:49 PM

mnkittel

"Yes, polygamy was condoned in the Old Testament, but if we take time to read the narratives we'll learn that it invariably brought alarming consequences."

Right. Like that whole "twelve tribes of Israel" thing.

8/24/2011 8:36:04 PM

gravematter

"This argument is that if the term "marriage" has no fixed meaning, then it has no fixed meaning. If you may revise the English language to suit your lusts, then on what basis can you say that others may not do the same?"

So would you be OK with gay marriage if we called it something else, like "darriage"? It never ceases to amaze me how many fundies try to back up their bile with petty semantic niggles.

8/24/2011 9:00:23 PM
1 2 3 4