1 2
#1418096
Raised by Horses
What is it with fundies and their obsession with "agendas"? Everything's an "agenda" with these people. Criticism of unfettered capitalism's effects on society? Marxist agenda. Equal rights for all sexes and people of all sexual preferences? Gay agenda. Pokemon? EvolutioNazi agenda. No, seriously.
6/30/2012 5:20:40 AM
#1418097
Triangetooth
Erm, but there isn't really much reason that consenting polygamy is illegal... after all, having an affair is perfectly legal and (imo) a far worse thing to do o_O
6/30/2012 5:21:30 AM
#1418099
Triangetooth
Erm, but there isn't really much reason that consenting polygamy is illegal... after all, having an affair is perfectly legal and (imo) a far worse thing to do o_O
6/30/2012 5:25:02 AM
#1418100
Filin De Blanc
"And you'll have to be dealt with, in ways we have yet to see."
What is with this idea that gay people having rights will somehow make it illegal to be homophobic? It's not like the end of segregation made it illegal to be racist.
6/30/2012 5:28:51 AM
#1418103
Holy shit, and in the end, maybe everybody is allowed to marry anyone they love - what a horrible thought for the religion with an all loving God. <.<
6/30/2012 5:32:49 AM
#1418104
John_in_Oz
As far as I can follow it, your argument is "Oh noes! If gays get equal rights then everybody will get them!"
6/30/2012 5:34:06 AM
#1418109
John
But now that we're 40 years past Roe v. Wade, many of us can see that the abortion agenda never was about "our pregnant daughters" at all ... It was, at root, about sexual freedom with no consequences.
But now that we're 40 years past Roe v. Wade, many of us can see that the anti-abortion agenda never was about abortion at all ... It was, at root, about preventing sexual freedom with no consequences.
That's why the same people who oppose abortion also oppose sex education and easy access to birth control, even though those things would prevent more abortions in a month than all their whining and shooting abortion doctors has prevented in 40 years.
6/30/2012 6:20:35 AM
#1418113
Aikku
... And what's wrong with polyamory?
6/30/2012 6:28:46 AM
#1418115
Firewing
Personally, I'm more worried about the children of Christian "families", what with Christians' penchant for child abuse/molestation. They should be dealt with for the sake of the children, but that's a different subject for a different time.
Why should "religious liberty" (and be honest with yourselves at least, and stop using that phrase. We all know it's code word for the undeserved privilege of your depraved religion) win out at all?
6/30/2012 6:34:53 AM
#1418116
Smurfette Principle
I fail to see the problem with sexual freedom or letting anyone have civil rights. Also, last I checked, the Bible doesn't give you the right to be an asshole to people or deny them their rights.
6/30/2012 6:36:20 AM
#1418117
fishtank
Explain to me again why any of this is bad. I don't see it.
6/30/2012 6:41:13 AM
#1418122
Leighton Buzzard
Meh. Usual lame recital of the script. (Followed by 'send us more $$$', usually).
The state also takes the official position that interracial and inter religious marriages are morally right. If you're an Orthodox Jewish family who believes God was telling the truth in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, you're the intolerant one. So far frummers remain undealt with.
6/30/2012 6:58:37 AM
#1418124
pete
The Constitution doesn't give anyone the right to infringe on the rights of others. Repeat 1,000 times then take a flying leap, Ms. Mefferd.
6/30/2012 7:28:49 AM
#1418125
Mister Spak
You better not impose freedom om me!
6/30/2012 7:31:35 AM
#1418130
LadyJafaria
First of all, cut the number of hypothetical young adults down significantly. Many fetuses are aborted because of medical complications that would mean they wouldn't be born alive or wouldn't survive to adulthood.
Second, considering financial problems are the reason most women who DON'T need one to save their lives get an abortion, these hypothetical babies would cause a lot of costs to increase. The same conservatives who whine about "those aborted babies could've paid my Social Security!" would be whining about "those irresponsible mothers taking my tax dollars!" Hell, they whine about both NOW, imagine what it'd be like if NO poor women aborted their pregnancies.
Third, I'm not sure whether to commend you for not comparing homosexuality to bestiality and pedophilia or assume you just forgot to. I'm not in a very charitable mood, so I'm going for the latter.
6/30/2012 7:46:14 AM
#1418131
Thinking Allowed
It's about sexual freedom, but it's really about state-sanctioned sexual freedom,
As opposed to a non-state sanctioned sexual freedom?
6/30/2012 7:46:37 AM
#1418133
Thinking Allowed
And don't forget that once the American public accepts that we must legally recognize a homosexual's "civil right" to marriage, how can we long deny those same "civil rights" to polygamists and polyamorists? Don't they have "love?" Don't they deserve "equality?" Look for those dominos to fall, too, probably more quickly than any of us can imagine.
As long as they're all consenting adults, why not?
6/30/2012 7:48:34 AM
#1418135
Nagol
"Religious liberty" doesn't give you the right to infringe upon the rights of others. When you attempt to use your religion to infringe upon the rights of others then the other person's freedom trumps your freedom to follow your religion. For example, if your religion told you to kill nonbelievers, and you went out and did so, you could argue it was your "religious liberty" to do so, but you'd still be sent to jail.
6/30/2012 7:52:33 AM
#1418140
Alencon
When did religious liberty come to mean imposing my religious opinion on everyone else?
If I understand the concern here, it's once homosexuality becomes accepted, those that oppose homosexuality will be looked upon as bigots, and since Christians oppose homosexuality, they'll be looked as bigots, and somehow this infringes their religious freedom.
Oh, now I get it. You not only want the freedom to believe what you want but you want your beliefs to be awarded the highest respect and admiration.
It doesn't work that way and, If you REALLY believed, you wouldn't care.
6/30/2012 8:02:38 AM
#1418143
Mayhem
What if I felt the same way about women's rights?
They didn't exist for along time, either. Give women rights and the next thing you know, you're giving dogs and chickens equal rights. So, get off the computer, get back in the kitchen, and make me dinner before I give you a black eye.
6/30/2012 8:09:40 AM
#1418151
Actually, yeah, polyamorous couples do love one another, and note the lack of a need for quote marks, you utter douchebag. And, as is the case with homosexual marriage/relationships, exactly whom are they harming (assuming everything's consensual, of course)?
6/30/2012 8:42:22 AM
#1418174
UHM
So, people can have sex now without economic sanctions coming from an institutionalized bronze age religion? Who cares? If you're right we'll go to hell, not you. And if we're right, you won't have lost anything.
6/30/2012 9:23:30 AM
#1418180
Aspirin
1. "What? Women aren't being punished for having vaginas? OH NOES!!1"
2. "What? Fags aren't being punished for being filthy sinners? OH NOES!!1"
3. "What? People who aren't exactly like me have rights too? OH NOES!!1"
4. Well that's a boring slippery slope. Where's the pedophilia and bestiality?
6/30/2012 9:34:55 AM
#1418201
Reynardine
Heterosexual men have always been able to enjoy sexual freedom with no consequences. Somehow, that doesn't bother you.
6/30/2012 10:22:40 AM
#1418215
how can we long deny those same "civil rights" to polygamists and polyamorists? Don't they have "love?" Don't they deserve "equality?"
...Is this a trick question?
6/30/2012 11:06:19 AM
1 2