The same reason they regulate, restrict and monitor smoking is the EXACT same reason they should regulate, restrict and monitor homosexuals.
[6/26/2012 3:35:40 ]
Fundie Index: 59
Filin De Blanc
"Heh... 'second-hand homosexuality'. I'll have to remember that one."
It's probably easier than doing it with just one hand. -rimshot-
I Read About The Afterlife
Because it causes lung cancer and emphysema? Have your statements been evaluated by the FDA?
Touching matching genitals gives you lung cancer and tar? Who knew!
Smoking a cigarette is similar in its deleterious effect on the public at large to a homosexual abominating, probably.
This makes even less sense than normal fundie logic.
You mean Homosexuality Inc. makes billions of dollars a year marketing products that tax the nation's healthcare system, adds carcinogenic substances to their products solely for their addictive properties, spends millions of dollars bribing public officials and buying 'scientist testimonies' that claim their products are safe?
Oh My Dog!
Gays cause cancer?
You can have gay sex at a bar, as long as you go outside and are not within 5m of the doorway ?
A quick quiz to see if you are ready to post in Free republic:
The original post is about tobacco legislation, so what does the very first responder chime in to discuss?
B) Vices of Liberal presidents
If you answered A, you are obviously not ready.
Uh, if you're having problems inhaling second-hand semen, you've got some other issues to deal with first.
Because, as we all know, the mere presence of a homosexual in the room with you can increase your chances of lung cancer.
As someone who smoked until very recently, you could neatly turn this lunacy on it's head...
The same reason that "they" don't regulate, restrict and monitor homosexuals is the EXACT same reason why "they" shouldn't regulate, restrict and monitor smoking as much as "they" do.
The anti-smoker lobby is almost as bat-shit insane as the fundie lobby (if you don't believe me, there is a recorded case of hidden speakers telling patients not to smoke in the gardens of a mental hospital - just the sort of people who really don't need to be bombarded by disembodied voices)
Is this a rationale for the re-introduction of burning homosexuals - but without smoke emission?
This may be correct. I have a good friend who is a lesbian and the week she went on holiday, I won £10 on the lottery so they are clearly bad for society. Praise Jesus!
False analogy detected...
High concentration of STUPID discovered.
I agree. I'm tired of hearing about all of the deaths attributed to second-hand gayness - just being in the same room as a gay person can cause fatal heart disease.
Oh wait, that's not true.
Let's take it a step at a time. First we'll tattoo warnings on them.
6/26/2012 12:06:34 PM
Who is this "they" that you speak of?
I thought all you Freeptards were all about Freedom anyway...what's with this endorsement of being regulated and restricted? Oh, when the regulations conform to your worldview it is ok for government to set policy?
6/26/2012 12:16:14 PM
Since when does homosexuality coat your lungs with tar and poison you with carcinogens?
6/26/2012 12:23:52 PM
Because homosexuality leads to lung cancer and Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, in both users and the people around them?
6/26/2012 12:23:59 PM
This guy apparently doesn't realize that criminalizing something doesn't make it go away, it just sends it underground. If you want proof of this, research Prohibition and see for yourself how well that worked out. And if your reason for wanting to criminalize homosexuality is because you think it would curb diseases, then I wonder what your plan would be for all the heterosexuals who spread diseases. Of course, it's clear to us that you don't really care about health hazards as much as you just hate queers.
6/26/2012 12:35:31 PM
But NoLibZone, I thought you simply loved some Gentlemens sausage? You simply can not seem to get your mind wrapped around anything else but the idea of a sausage fest!
6/26/2012 12:55:52 PM
They MONITOR smoking?
6/26/2012 3:09:17 PM
@ Brendan Rizzo:
If Rush Limbaugh hasn't already made up just such a story, he soon will!
6/26/2012 3:17:59 PM
how would you suggest regulating homosexuals? a gay sex tax? how would you enforce it? you cnat discriminate against GROUPS of people (for example "NO GAYS!"), you cant set up "gay" and "non gay" sections in restaurants. you could of course ban public displays of affection in businesses, but any rules you set up have to extend to all sexual orientations. the only way you can get rid of any visible homosexuality without being blatantly discriminatory, is to completely de-sexualize our society. and that my freind, is an impossible task. sex is just too much fun.
6/26/2012 3:19:13 PM