demiurgent: (Ludi)
demiurgent ([personal profile] demiurgent) wrote2009-04-22 03:36 pm

Here's a little hint to bigotted dumbasses.

When you make a statement like "if we allow homosexuals to marry -- what's to stop the broadening of marriage laws further? What's to prevent people from marrying their animals?" You're equating homosexuals to subhuman status.

You are saying that their happiness, their relationships and their lives are bestial.

You're not just being offensive when you do that. You're taking human beings and reducing them to chattel.

If there is a Heaven and there is a Hell? Doing that shit should be what sends you to Hell.

If you're right and you get to go to Heaven? I would rather go to Hell.

[identity profile] elmo-iscariot.livejournal.com 2009-04-22 08:50 pm (UTC)(link)
It's subhuman because two men or two women can't create a baby without external help. (And really, that is what it boils down to even on a religious level. You have sex to make babies and thereby continue the human race. The pleasures of sex is just a good by-product of the intended purpose of sex.)

Right. Which is why so many states have passed laws and amendments preventing the subhuman act of marrying a sterile person.

Personally, I don't think we go far enough to stop this insane, selfish atrocity--some married couples actually _choose_ not to have kids, in a clear fuck-you to all the ways of God and man. We should be sending cops to their houses to force them to conceive at gunpoint. Hell, why do we even tie this to marriage? There are tens of thousands of women out there who've passed puberty but still aren't popping out any babies! Some of them actually _promise_ not to have sex! Can you believe that? What unmitigated, intolerable selfishness! Don't they know we have to continue the human race here? I say we form mobile mommy-vans dedicated to cruising for unpregnant women and girls and showing them the real purpose of their lives!

There's a celibate storm coming. And I am afraid.