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

[andustar.livejournal.com]

Thank you for taking this all so gracefully. I have a tuppence worth to add.

The whole 'and by the way, in Europe...' thing annoys me a bit, being European myself. Believe it or not, it is not possible to marry inanimate objects, even over here. The Eiffel tower lady (http://www.independent.co.uk/extras/sunday-review/living/i-married-the-eiffel-tower-832519.html) had a non-legally binding ceremony, and then changed her surname to 'La Tour Eiffel'. That is not the same as getting married. People can change their name to whatever they like, and throw whatever parties they want. That doesn't make them married in the eyes of the law.

'it's not that homosexuals aren't subhuman, but the act itself is what would be considered subhuman.'
Because male-female couples never have oral or anal sex? I'd be willing to bet that as we speak there is more oral and anal going on between couples of men and women than between same sex couples.

'It's subhuman because two men or two women can't create a baby without external help.'
So are infertile people who can't conceive without external help having 'subhuman' sex too?

'It's subhuman because two men or two women can't create a baby without external help.
Because male-female couples never use contraception? Again, I bet there is a total of substantially more non-procreational sex going on between MF couples than same sex couples at any given moment today.

When I hear these arguments I always wonder if the people saying them live in the same world as I do. When I look around my world, 'sex' is nowhere near 100% about procreation, with everything else a mere side effect. Very few people (and certainly no one I know personally) live through life only ever being sexually active when they intend to create a pregnancy. I think what lies behind this argument is usually not much more sophisticated than an 'ewwwwwww' squick about the idea of two men together (and a 'well, it's not really actual sex' about two women, but best not to get me started on that).