Taking a break from work — and apparently, leave of my senses — I followed a link from Townhall over to The American Vision (rose-colored glasses in about an hour), where I was treated to a front page article entitled Homosexual Marriages: Square Peg, Round Hole, written by a fellow with the super-butch moniker, “Gary DeMar,” (which I believe was also the name of the choreographer in The Producers). For those who may be unfamiliar with The American Vision, the masthead reads, “Exercising Servanthood Dominion,” which leaves it unclear whether they consider themselves tops or bottoms, although frankly it sounds like they’re trying to have it both ways.
Abortion opinion has shifted in the past thirty years from majority approval or indifference to majority dissent
Or not.
…because more Americans are aware that abortion kills a preborn baby.
Previously, most Americans believed that having an abortion merely sprained the fetus, and women who had suffered miscarriages would often hear their husbands exhorting the zygote to “get up and walk it off.”
Technology has given us a window to the womb. Take a look at the GE 4D Ultrasound. The images are astounding. If the media ever tell the truth about homosexual behavior, public opinion will change. Homosexuals know this, so they are working overtime to get laws on the books that will eventually negate any later shift in public opinion.
Once GE perfects an ultrasound machine that can detect frottage, those queers will be on their way to Reading Gaol before you can say “Oh, snap!”
Stephen Hendricks, vice president of PRIDE, a Montana homosexual “rights” advocacy group, has argued for homosexual marriage for some time.
While Gary’s “brain” has argued with Merriam Websters about the proper use of quotation marks for even longer, leading the frustrated sub/dom to take his dictionary to a local obstetrician and demand it be given an ultrasound to reveal the homosexual grammarian within.
His latest entry was published on January 9, 2009 in celebration of “National Freedom to Marry Day.” He writes: “Fortunately, prejudice is starting to [crumble]. Polls show 75 percent of Americans think gay marriages will eventually be legal. About a third want it to happen, a third don’t and another third don’t care. (Among college students, three in five think gays should be able to wed.)” The reason there has been a shift in opinion is because the mainstream media refuse to define and describe what homosexuality actually is as a lifestyle.
Fabulous?
The euphemism “gay,” like the use of “pro-choice” for killing pre-born babies, masks what homosexuality really is. It doesn’t take long to get young people to reject homosexual behavior. I’ve accomplished it in less than 15 seconds.
“In fact, I was still struggling with my zipper when the undercover vice cop threw me up against the bathroom stall…”
Aversion to abortion, the holocaust, and lynching are made more real when people see the images of the behavior or hear them described as defined.
So fully one-third of American women are the moral equivalent of Adolf Eichmann with Nathan Bedford Forrest sprinkled on top. This may be the first time in history that a single sentence has broken Godwin’s Law, Newton’s Law of Inertia, the Law of Diminishing Return, and, I’m pretty sure, Ape Law.
Hendricks attempts to refute anti-homosexual arguments. Most of them are standard-issue in the homosexual community. Here are some of them with my rebuttal:
Rebuttal on rebuttal action! I better go get my assless chaps.
Anti-Homosexual Claim 1:
“Marriage has always been the way it is; you can’t change it just to fit the times.”Attempted Rebuttal by Hendricks: “Gay marriage is perfectly in keeping with the evolving nature of the institution. Once blacks couldn’t marry whites, Jews couldn’t marry Christians and wives were property of husbands. Such features changed as notions of equality did.”
Rebuttal of Hendricks by DeMar: Notice that Hendricks assumes the validity of marriage. Why is marriage legitimate in the first place? He never says. He must assume the biblical origin of marriage in order to reject it.
Or he might have looked at all the married and divorced people around him and realized it’s a common legal arrangement between two consenting adults which confers a variety of privileges and obligations, so long as the parties to the contract can produce no more than one penis and one vagina between them. As for “biblical origin of marriage,” the Bible isn’t a history text, and even if it were, marriage is pre-historic. Just look at the Flintstones.
Hendricks borrows the biblical institution of marriage to deny the biblical definition of marriage.
Yes, true, he borrowed the biblical institution of marriage, but he brought it back, while you still have his Garden Weasel! And what has the Bible got to do with marriage, anyway? You can’t contract a marriage with just a Bible — you need a license to make it binding, but I know for a fact that you can get married without a Bible anywhere in the building.
Animals don’t marry; they only mate.
And unlike humans in the Red States, some animals mate for life.
So why should the human animal be bound by such outdated religious restraints?
You refer to what Doghouse Riley has dubbed, “Our Abiding Respect for All Forms of Bronze Age Superstition”?
If you’re going to use the word “marriage,” it’s necessary that you account for its origin.
Sure. Just look what happened to you guys when you used the word “teabagging” without first performing a little etymological due diligence.
Hendricks doesn’t; he can’t unless he appeals to the Bible’s creation story.
“I’m sorry, but we cannot approve your ballot initiative requiring the renegotiation of public employee pension contracts in budget deficit years until you can explain how Osiris managed to impregnate Isis with Horus after he’d already been killed by his brother Set.”
Hendricks then moves on by discussing the “evolving nature of the institution.” Of course, if evolution is true, then he’s right. Marriage can be anything we want it to be. But if we begin with the biblical origin of marriage, then there’s nothing evolutionary about it: “For this cause a man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and they shall become one flesh” (Gen. 2:24; Matt. 19:4–6).
As we’ve said, marriage pre-dates the Bible, and even heterosexual marriage doesn’t derive its legal standing from Genesis. Otherwise, in the case of divorce, men would have to give their ex-wives the house, the car, and a rib.
In biblical terms, marriage has always been between one man and one woman. There’s nothing in the Bible that says blacks can’t marry whites.
That’s the amazing thing about the Bible. You can get it to say just about anything:
“Judge Leon Bazile looked down at Richard Loving and Mildred Jeter Loving as they stood before him in 1959 in the Caroline County, Va. courtroom. “Almighty God,” he intoned, “created the races white, black, yellow, Malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.” With that, Judge Bazile sentenced the newlywed Lovings to one year in jail. Their crime: Mildred is part Negro, part Indian, and Richard is white.”
In some cultures, wives are considered property, but not in the Bible where the definition of marriage is found. If, as Hendricks says, marriage is an evolving institution, then what would make any of these man-made prohibitions wrong?
We’ve evolved beyond them?
Anti-Homosexual Claim 2:
“Homosexuality is immoral; the Bible condemns it.”Attempted Rebuttal by Hendricks: “In the Bible, the book of Leviticus does say gays should be killed. But the Bible would also have us kill women who have premarital sex and men who masturbate, and it forbids tattoos, working on Sunday, eating shrimp and playing with pigskin (in other words, football). With good reason, America is a democracy not a theocracy.”
Rebuttal of Hendricks by DeMar: This is a loaded one. I’ll start from the bottom and work my way up. America is a republic not a democracy.
Well, this is gonna take a while…You know what, I’m just gonna nip out the kitchen, grab a soda. Anybody want anything? Pringles? Chex Mix?
If America were a democracy, then if 51% of the people wanted to prohibit homosexual marriage, then homosexuals would have to live with the democratic consensus, like the vote against homosexual marriage in California! But, of course, we know the homosexual community didn’t go along with the voice of the people. They intimidated those who supported Proposition 8 and have turned to the courts to overrule the vote of the majority. It’s the homosexual minority that believes in a theocracy, a theocracy where man is god. This was much in evidence at this year’s Miss USA Pageant where Miss California stated that she did not believe homosexual marriage was right. One of the judges, a flaming homosexual named Perez Hilton, stated that Carrie Prejean most likely lost the crown because of her heresy. She had blasphemed.
If you’ve ever wanted to visit an alternate universe where Jim J. Bullock is Cotton Mather, I hope you enjoyed the preceding paragraph.
Footballs are not made from pigskin, and even if they were, only religious observant Jews might be prohibited from handling the ball. There are no civil sanctions against handling pigs or their skin. The prohibition against eating shrimp is also religious and does not carry civil sanctions.
Okay! See — he almost gets it! Marriage — in America — is a CIVIL contract. Gah! It’s like you spent all day Saturday training your dog to sit on command, and you think he understands what the word means, but then on Sunday you go to show the family what Sparky can do now, and when you say “sit!” he just stares at you.
The Bible does prohibit work on the Sabbath and the Constitution acknowledges this (Art. I, sec. 7). Sandy Koufax made the personal decision not to pitch in Game 1 of the 1965 World Series because it fell on Yom Kippur. I don’t see how the Sabbath an argument against the Bible since the Bible also prohibits murder, rape, incest, bestiality, kidnapping, theft, perjury, and other acts that remain on our law books. Would homosexuals call for these laws to be rescinded in order to normalize sodomy? Given an evolutionary worldview, none of today’s crimes should be considered unlawful.
Please. “An eye for an eye” and “a tooth for a tooth” was in the frigging Code of Hammurabi, circa 1760 B.C. The Code of Ur-Nammu, circa 2100 – 2050 B.C. also forbids the following:
- 1. If a man commits a murder, that man must be killed.
- 2. If a man commits a robbery, he will be killed.
- 3. If a man commits a kidnapping, he is to be imprisoned and pay 15 shekels of silver.
So Mr. Old Testament is a bit of a Johnny Come Lately insofar as lawgiving is concerned. Moreover, “murder, rape, incest, bestiality, kidnapping, theft, perjury” are not the moral equivalent of two guys pledging their troth in Boise. Just ask the ancient Sumerians.
There is no death penalty for masturbation.
You better hope not, Gary.
The issue of premarital sex is more complicated.
Ooooh, “complicated?” Suddenly we’re doing nuance, are we? Methinks somebody didn’t come to the marriage bed an unspotted virgin.
Contrary to what Hendricks claims, the Bible does not say “gays should be killed.” Public acts of sodomy are condemned with civil sanctions (Lev. 18:22; 20:13; Rom. 1:18–32). The main purpose of these laws is to keep homosexuality closeted.
That’s why everyone in the Bible went around with a beard.
Anti-Homosexual Claim 3:
“Gay Marriage doesn’t lead to children, the purpose of marriage.”Attempted Rebuttal by Hendricks: “Wrong on both counts. States give marriage licenses to straight couples who don’t or can’t procreate. And like many straight couples, gays raise children thanks to adoption or sperm donors.”
Rebuttal of Hendricks by DeMar: The State does not know whether heterosexual couples can or can’t procreate.
If two 70-year old pensioners meet at Leisure World and decide to legally pool their Social Security checks, who is the State to assume that Joe’s limp, wizened, liver-spotted manflesh won’t be planting a seed in Martha’s arid, post-menopausal womb.
The question is never asked. The State does know that homosexuals who engage in same-sex sex will never be able to conceive. Hendricks is equivocating in the way he uses “lead to children.” It’s a biological fact that homosexual sex will never lead to children. (I have a great line for this truth that I can’t put in print.)
I’ll just bet you do. (Okay, I’m going to take a little break. Have some dinner, get drunk. See you all a bit later…)
Okay, I’m back.
Given what we know about male and female anatomy, the vast majority of heterosexual couples will be able to conceive and have children.
I have a great line about your mother, but I can’t put it in print.
Men and women are anatomically suited to procreate. They were made that way by God. The fact that homosexuals have to use extraordinary means in every case to make children a part of their manufactured family—artificial insemination—is good evidence that there is something biologically wrong with homosexual marriages.
Yeah. I know two gay and one lesbian couple who fathered and mothered children, and in two of the three cases, the “extraordinary means” involved a fifth of Chablis and a pint of vodka. Which is pretty much the same way my heterosexual parents managed my conception.
If a child keeps hammering a square peg into a round hole after he’s been shown that the round peg goes into the round hole, we must assume that his intellectual abilities are somewhat diminished.
Gay men aren’t attracted to members of their own sex, they’re just too stupid to find the vagina.
Does it ever register with homosexuals that maybe God is telling them something when they get life-threatening diseases because of their sexual practices and can have no children no matter how hard they try? Like Dr. Frankenstein, homosexuals take God’s design of marriage and manufacture an artificial monster from its parts.
All the straight victims of AIDS are just collateral damage in God’s war against fags.
Anti-Homosexual Claim 4:
“If gays marry, next people will want to marry horses or children.”Attempted Rebuttal by Hendricks: “The equine argument is a Montana favorite, as it was for foes of interracial marriage. But marriage gay or straight is a contract between two consenting adults. Nobody proposes changing this.”
Rebuttal of Hendricks by DeMar: No one right now proposes changing this like no one 20 years ago thought there would be any consideration of homosexual marriages today. Homosexual groups have been trying to lower the age of consent. If your son or daughter can marry at the age of fifteen or sixteen
Then you might want to consider moving out of Alabama or Alaska.
then what will stop homosexual marriages of the same age? The definition of consenting adult can change. “Consenting adult” would also include the marriage of sister and brother, mother and daughter, father and daughter, father and son, and any other combination you don’t want to think about (1 Cor. 5:1).
Here’s what I don’t get about the slippery slope, Gary, perhaps you can help me. When the Supreme Court overturned the laws of many states banning interracial marriage in 1967, why didn’t men immediately start marrying their brothers, their sisters, their ventriloquist dummies, and women start wedding their coat-trees, anacondas, or the odd Barbershop Quartet? I mean, the brakes were off, right? Anything goes!
Anti-Homosexual Claim 5: “Gay sex is disgusting.”Attempted Rebuttal by Hendricks: “So are, to many people, some ‘straight’ sex acts. It’s not the state’s job to intrude in the bedrooms of consenting adults.”
Rebuttal of Hendricks by DeMar: Yes, homosexual sex is disgusting and dangerous.
Gary? No offense, but I don’t think anyone wants to watch you fuck, either.
Anti-Homosexual Claim 6:
“You can’t force a church to marry gays.”Attempted Rebuttal by Hendricks: “True, but irrelevant. Gays are asking for state-issued licenses. Religions will remain as free to ban gay weddings as they are to ban women ministers.”
Rebuttal of Hendricks by DeMar: Maybe right now. The way “hate crime” legislation is moving, churches may find it difficult in the near future to say anything critical of homosexuality in general.
When my sister decided to get married, she and her hubby-to-be drove around every church in Corvallis, Oregon looking for a venue for the wedding. Every single church turned them down, even though they were one man and one woman, because they weren’t members of their denomination or congregation. They finally found a female Unitarian minister who agreed to perform the ceremony in a lovely, if somewhat rural, location. So why don’t you quit borrowing trouble from the imaginary Think Pink Though Police of the future, Gary? We bend over backwards to allow clergy their tax-exempt bigotry, and that’s not likely to change just because gay people are denied one less right the rest of us enjoy. As my friend’s 90-year old Polish mother once said to me, “Don’t call the wolf from the woods.”
Anti-Homosexual Claim 7:
“Why do gays need to marry anyway?”Rebuttal by Hendricks: “Many basic rights and protections are conferred by marriage, like the rights to visit a hospitalized partner, receive family health benefits and inherit a partner’s property.”Rebuttal of Hendricks by DeMar: Property can be passed on to anyone. You don’t have to be married to inherit. In fact, you don’t have to be a human being to inherit.
Gary? Fuck. You.
Fundamentally, marriage is not about certain economic rights and protections. Redefining the family and the nature of marriage for economic and personal reasons is off the mark and falls outside the jurisdiction of the State
But the medical insurance I have thanks to my wife certainly came in handy when I herniated that disk and desperately needed an MRI.
Hendricks is counting on the majority of Americans not being able to think clearly on this topic. The fact that he is willing to have his own poorly reasoned arguments published only goes to show how gullible and unthinking he considers most Americans to be on this topic. And maybe they are. Only time and the law will tell.
And if things don’t seem to be going your way legally, you can always blow a trumpet at the marrying gays and make the County Courthouse collapse on them, or grow your hair out and kill 10,000 homos with the jawbone of an ass, thus proving that Biblical ways are as relevant today as they were 2500 years. Now if you’ll excuse me, I’ve got to go find out which of my asshole neighbors slew a 10th of my kine.
Nope. You can’t make me read it. Why should I imperil my beautiful mind by exposing it to some bigotted, wilfully-ignorant fool’s attempt to expose the depths of his ignorance about two separate fields of morality simultaneously?
Left by herr doktor bimler on April 22nd, 2009