Here's a little hint to bigotted dumbasses.

[demiurgent]

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.

Comments

[ryuko-midori.livejournal.com]

What is the difference between consenting and not consenting!?!?! WHO KNOWS!?

Let's be watching our drinks around people who bandy about statements like that.

[roniliquidity.livejournal.com]

Right, and next my cats and I are going into business together.

Tell them animals don't have thumbs, so they can't sign the paperwork. I'm not sure that kind of idiocy can be reasoned with.

[miyaa99.livejournal.com]

Normally, I'd be indifferent about such an issue.

That was before my father left my mother after she caught him having sex with another guy. Now I'm home, my mother is utterly devastated, and I'm left trying to please her like a puppy so she doesn't completely take it out on me because of my father.

Because of my state's stand on homosexual union and how it has recently evolved, my father could possibly go ahead with the divorce, and marry his one true love in Iowa. I wouldn't be surprised if the Missouri State Supreme Court overturns the state constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman. Heck, I could see the Federal Government overturning such a man and woman marriage agreement leaving only an Amendment to the Constitution as the move of last resort left.

To many, it's not that homosexuals aren't subhuman, but the act itself is what would be considered subhuman. 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.) Most who are opposed to homosexual unions that I've heard are more concerned about marriage of one man and two women or two men and a woman, a polygamous marriage. The whole marriage between a man and a sheep is just them being stupid, although between you and me, fucking a sheep or a heifer (young cow) happens a lot more on a farm than you'd think. (And besides, I heard on one of the Adam Carolla podcasts that he's heard of a woman marrying the Eiffel Tower in Paris. Not sure if it's actually true, but being married to an animal isn't the stupidest thing people have done yet.)

Honestly, I'm still trying to sort this out, and the discovery that my father is gay doesn't help matters at all. Actually, I'm more confused than ever.

[interlocutron.livejournal.com]

And then there's the one or two people who freak out that gay marriage will result in polygamy. Aside from that not really being a bad thing in itself, there's the fact that tax laws would have to be drastically re-written to accomodate multiple spouses.

Once again showing that most people against gay marriage don't seem to realize that marriage is a legal contract, not just a ceremony in a church. Once they realize that, they can no longer claim you can marry animals, children, objects, and corspes, because none of those entities can enter into contracts.

[missing-thewar.livejournal.com]

amen, brother. i hear you loud and clear and wholeheartedly agree. some people make me sick.

[scrubbo.livejournal.com]

Why doesn't hetero sex lead to marrying your opposite gendered pet?

[amhorach.livejournal.com]

I think I heard it summed up best as follows: "If you oppose gay marriage, don't marry a gay person."

Religion has no place in secular issues. Opposition to gay marriage is by and large, a religious standpoint.* A state sanctione marriage is, by its nature, such an issue. Leave the religion angle out of it entirely, any any opposition anyone has at that point in time should be gone.

*I'm sure it isn't in all cases, but I can't think of any off the top of my head, either.

I believe this sums up their arguements against:

[biomekanic.livejournal.com]

(http://s6.photobucket.com/albums/y211/biomekanic/?action=view&current=boxturtlemarriage.jpg)


I love the Colbert Report's video reaction.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

*cheer*!