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

Quote# 88079

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. And it wasn't about creating a more fair, equal society. It was, at root, about sexual freedom with no consequences. A freedom that has cost an entire generation of children -- roughly 53 million babies to date -- their lives. And for what? Now that Social Security is in its death throes, one could argue that having 53 million more young adults in America right now might have been a good thing for all of us. That cursed hindsight.

By contrast, the LGBT agenda hasn't been fully realized -- yet. They say they want equality, fairness, civil rights. It's about sexual freedom, but it's really about state-sanctioned sexual freedom, one that will create a whole new definition of morality and civilization. That's a big change, one that will be nearly impossible to reverse. So it's about more than shrugging your shoulders about the two nice guys down the street who want to be married. It's also about accepting that, if homosexual couples are allowed to marry in the United States, the state -- as it has in the case of our newly "open" military --takes the official position that homosexuality is morally right. If you're a Christian family who believes that God was telling the truth in Romans, Chapter 1, you're the intolerant one under the new morality. And you'll have to be dealt with, in ways we have yet to see.

We do have an inkling of what's ahead, though, as seen in places like the U.S. military and some college campuses. When homosexual "rights" are recognized, religious rights -- guaranteed in our First Amendment -- are trumped. Even Equal Employment Opportunity Commission appointee and radical lesbian Chai Feldblum has said that when homosexual rights and religious liberty come into conflict, ā€œIā€™m having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win.ā€

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.

Janet Mefferd, The Janet Mefferd Show 40 Comments [6/30/2012 5:12:02 AM]
Fundie Index: 36
Submitted By: ScrappyB
WTF?! || meh
Username:
Comment:



1 2
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

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

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

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



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

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

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

Aikku

... And what's wrong with polyamory?

6/30/2012 6:28:46 AM

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

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

fishtank

Explain to me again why any of this is bad. I don't see it.

6/30/2012 6:41:13 AM

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

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

Mister Spak

You better not impose freedom om me!

6/30/2012 7:31:35 AM

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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



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