1
#1473692
ausador
Poe, other posters in the thread know he is a Poe and merely doing satire.
11/25/2012 1:49:10 AM
#1475247
John_in_Oz
Oh, known troll?
Nevermind.
11/28/2012 4:46:10 AM
#1475248
Reynardine
Other people marrying who they want to doesn't impede your marrying who you want to, unless, of course, you wanted to marry one of those other people. But then, them's the breaks for all of us.
11/28/2012 4:50:06 AM
#1475251
Tempus
A known satirist.
Having said that, there are many, many people who would read this and nod silently in agreement.
11/28/2012 4:58:49 AM
#1475258
OhJohnNo
Well, if it's a known poe then it shouldn't be here, no matter how impressively subtle.
11/28/2012 5:31:23 AM
#1475259
farpadokly
But the racists at the time probably would claim that it did have a basis in biology: That the white race was biologically superior and would be degraded by the admixture of non-white blood.
All the evidence is that homosexuality is not a disease that can be spread, but something that naturally occurs.
We know the practical reason why homosexuality was sometimes objected to in the ancient world: Because it led to a fall in birthrate. They wanted sex to be strictly for procreation for practical reasons. This does not apply today.
11/28/2012 5:31:23 AM
#1475260
The Knight of Piñata
Known Poe?
I am disappoint.
11/28/2012 5:33:24 AM
#1475261
Leighton Buzzard
That's a very poor piece of satire, then. Surely the whole idea of satire is to send up a viewpoint for laughs, not just repeat what somebody is actually likely to say.
11/28/2012 5:37:55 AM
#1475263
Doubting Thomas
Not much to comment on here since others have pointed out that this is a poe. The only comment I will make is that I can't wait for gay marriage to be legal in all 50 states and homophobic opposition to it a distant memory.
11/28/2012 5:49:22 AM
#1475265
Poe gets a meh.
11/28/2012 5:59:05 AM
#1475272
Mister Spak
"The problem with preventing interraccial marriage is that it was impossible to enforce, and had no basis in biology. "
Wrong on both counts. People went to prison for breaking gods law, and the basis was not biology, it was The Command Of God.
All these problems started when unelected judicial activists legislated from the bench in 1967 that niggers could have se with white women.
11/28/2012 6:19:53 AM
#1475274
Sheridan
Another case of the Edgar Allan's. :-/
11/28/2012 6:23:14 AM
#1475285
Firewing
Just replace homosexuality with religion and the statement would actually be accurate.
11/28/2012 7:04:08 AM
#1475293
dionysus
PoE. But he uses some typical arguments in this post so I'll go through them anyway.
the homosexual relationship, by its very nature, is unstable
Because a 50% divorce rate among straight couples just screams stability.
and unnatural
Marriage itself is unnatural. No other animals get married. However, homosexuality has been documented in hundreds of species so it is clearly natural.
It is in the best interest of the state and nation to prevent that sort of "union" from being recognized
How so? It only makes more people get marriage licenses and brings in more business for courthouses and reception halls. In a tough economy we could use the extra money flow.
it is in the interest of the state and nation to make it as difficult as possible for those poor mentally handicapped individuals
No reputable psychologist classes homosexuality as a mental illness. That's because it's not.
from at the very least flaunting their mental disorders in public, to say nothing of spreading it
It's straight people that spread homosexuality. Straight people keep having gay offspring.
11/28/2012 7:39:47 AM
#1475302
Papabear
No, the problem with preventing interraccial marriage was that it was an outrageous violation of civil rights. The problem with preventing same-sex marriage is that it is an outrageous violation of civil rights.
11/28/2012 8:08:16 AM
#1475471
beehummingbird
"The problem with preventing interraccial marriage is that it was impossible to enforce"
Really? Aside from the wrongness of banning inter-racial marriage,I would have thought that it would be fairly easy to enforce.
11/28/2012 11:46:59 AM
#1475521
Thinking Allowed
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/HTML/facts_mental_health.HTML
In 1973, the weight of empirical data, coupled with changing social norms and the development of a politically active gay community in the United States, led the Board of Directors of the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). Some psychiatrists who fiercely opposed their action subsequently circulated a petition calling for a vote on the issue by the Association's membership. That vote was held in 1974, and the Board's decision was ratified.
11/28/2012 1:28:23 PM
#1475534
JGC
"It is in the best interest of the state and nation to prevent that sort of "union" from being recognized"
I'll bite--exactly what rational interest does the state have in opposing civil marriage between partners of the same gender? What dmonstrable harm would it do which outweighs the benefits which accrue to the state from recognition of marriage??
11/28/2012 1:49:26 PM
#1475572
Old Viking
Pontificating on "the very nature" of homosexual relationships is a sure sign the person has nothing substantive to say.
11/28/2012 2:48:50 PM
#1476162
Ebon
Poe but not a very good one. The idea is to comically exaggerate the viewpoints, not just repeat them.
11/29/2012 4:10:02 PM
1