no love for the haters

.

.

Hey.

My life is still chugging along nicely. Winter is lingering, which is great, because the longer we can delay the heat, the better.

I’m going to try to buy my first smartyphone this week. Not sure which one. All i really want is GPS and the ability to shoot video. Video of… puppies? Maybe. Every single person has some kind of strong opinion on which i should get, and i tell them — fool, i’m stepping up from a 2006 LG flip phone, any of them will seem like Star Trek shit to me.

Since i don’t have much going on, would you like to read some hilarious/idiotic/rage-inducing quotes about the gay marriage debate from right-wingers?

I never get tired of this stuff. These people sound so mad.

.

.

“There is nothing substantive about the same-sex marriage argument, it is pure emotion.”

“Where is the demonstrable “need” or even a want for homosexual marriage? It’s not like one of them got in trouble and they need to make it legal. No shotgun homo weddings that I’m aware of.”

“I know a lot of queers and none of them are married or want to be.”

“You continue to labor under the delusion that marriage is just a ‘love license’ and concerned only with the emotional aspect of the adults involved.”

“How does gay marriage ruin your hetero marriage? Short answer: The same way that printing more and more and more and more paper devalues the currency—dilution effect.”

“I’m waiting for the pamphlet: “Ok, you’re gay. But are you gay enough? Are you Authentically gay? Are you doing your part to be the sort of gay that is allied with the right side of history? And have you ever thought about the term LBGT? Are those letters really in the right order? How would you arrange them and why?”

“You can’t ignore in your analysis the fact that the academic/political forces behind the push for gay marriage were the same that were openly calling for the abolition of marriage in its entirety a few decades ago, while simultaneously tacitly undermining the institution through the regime of family laws. The ineffectiveness of the institution weakened by forces who would see it destroyed as an “archaic institution for the ownership of women” is not an argument to cede further ground to the same forces. The fact that human nature, and human sexual nature is not well constrained and directed by a purposefully weakened institution is, however, an argument to restore it and in favor of its very necessity. Looked at another way, it is easy for women to love and understand women, just as I suppose it is for two men who are, after all, essentially like one another. Loving and understanding the other – as opposed to simply being strongly sexually attracted to the one – across the divide of the sexes is difficult. Is it then any wonder that a strong institution is more necessary to fuse together the unlike but complimentary things than to fuse together things that are essentially the same?”

“Human societies have added on all kinds of customs and traditions and practices and attitudes to the core component of marriage, which consists of the union of the sexes to form a new household. Polygamy is the only viable alternative to monogamy, but only when there’s one man and many women, not the reverse. Polygamy is actually more “natural” than monogamy, because the instinctive reproductive strategy of the male is to spread his seed far and wide, whereas the instinctive reproductive strategy of the female is to mate with the alpha male. However, this arrangement leaves a lot of unattached males running around, and they’re nothing but trouble. So monogamy it is. Do you never stop to wonder why none of the other civilizations—including non-Abrahamic societies and other societies such as the sodomy-friendly Spartans—ever supported (or if they did, it didn’t last long)? Shouldn’t we find out before moving ahead? First rule of remodeling: never remove a wall until you know why it’s there. Our society, with its degraded marriage practices and attitudes, is exactly the wrong society to know whether the opposite-sex component can be safely removed.”

“Why does a dog lick his balls? Answer: Because he can. Because you can do something is not a cogent reason to do that thing.”

“Same-sex marriage is itself a means to an end, and ultimately meant to become meaningless as well. This is an all-out war on everything that is not absolutely controlled by government. It is not enough to have it defined and regulated by government, it must be controlled and administered, bestowed or denied, by duly sworn bureaucrats — the ordained priests of the Established, Infallible Church of the Infinitely Jealous New God of the Red Tape.”

“California gave gays civil unions. For the rainbow mafia, it wasn’t enough. For statists, it is never enough because they don’t want tolerance from people who disagree, they want capitulation and then annihilation.”

“I’ve said many times that gay marriage isn’t about civil rights. If it was, civil unions would suffice. Gay marriage is about walking in and pissing on someone else’s altar because they won’t worship your gods.”

“Queers are by nature swingers. The last thing they want to be is married. Monogomish is as far as they go. Monogomy? Meh. I still say they are in it for the swag. And the attention, being the attention whores that they are.”

“Unfettered individualism is an unwitting friend of the Leviathan State.”

“I have been agnostic on the gay marriage thing in general however, I do understand all the family oriented arguments. I might share those concerns if the numbers of gays in this country was close to the numbers portrayed in popular media.”

“It is NOT true that it is illegal for gays to marry. There is no test for sexual orientation when issuing a marriage license. The test is for biological sex: you can marry the opposite sex but not the same sex. That rule applies exactly the same way to straights and to gays. If a flaming gay man and a butch lesbian try to obtain a marriage license, it will be given to them, no questions asked. No law can stop a gay man from marrying any woman (straight or gay). No person wants to prevent such a situation. The problem is that even though a gay man can marry a woman, he ordinarily does not want to, but his not wanting to marry a woman is based on the fact that he is not sexually attracted to her. There is no law to prohibit anyone from marrying someone they are not sexually attracted to. There is no test for sexual attraction. You don’t have to prove that you have the hots for your intended spouse to get married. (I’m also not sure that a person’s wants and desires—regardless of how they came by them [I’m assuming it’s a brain thing]—is a sound basis for designating a protected class or for saying that we’ve got a different species of creature walking around.) ERGO. The only question at hand is whether biological sex (gender) should be taken into account when issuing marriage licenses. The aim is not to remove discrimination against gays (the law does not single out gays and tell them they can’t enter into a marriage contract), the aim is to make sex irrelevant to the composition and practice of marriage. KEEP IT STRAIGHT AND STOP MISREPRESENTING THE CURRENT STATE OF AFFAIRS.”

“A lesbian can be a perfectly good mother but she can never be a father; a gay man can be a perfectly good father but never a mother. This is exactly the kind of wicked conflation that the Left has been engaged in for decades: war is peace, ignorance is knowledge, mother is father, printed money is wealth, discrimination is justice, and Potsie is the Fonz. Pretending that something is what it is not never works out well. Let’s not bend to the will of bullies and their misapplication of the term “equality.”

“Anything that increases the likelihood of turkey-baster fatherhood is not a good thing. The first consideration needs to be the well-being of the kids, not the proclivities and preferences of the adults. Not fair that gays can’t reproduce or marry? Maybe what’s not fair is that they’re gay in the first place.”

“They can’t punish God, so they take it out on those of us God made straight. They punished their parents first and it didn’t make them feel any better. If they believe in God (even most “atheists” do, but won’t admit it) then they may have declared themselves “atheist” to try to punish Him. And that didn’t make them feel any better. So now they’re taking aim at the rest of us.”

.

.

Wow.

And that’s just from one website.

There’s a lot more out there, probably.

I wish the internet had existed in the 1950’s. I bet there’d be a lot of hilarious posts that read “I know a lot of negros, and none of them want to attend white schools” and “they can’t punish White God, so they take it out on those of us God made white.”

Right?