The slogan “love is love” seems to show up everywhere.
Behind the slogan is an assertion: that the sincerity of affection is enough to justify any relationship, especially same-sex relationships, and that’s enough for that relationship to be called “marriage.”
After all, who’s to say who can and can’t love each other? And why should people who are in love, as long as they are consenting adults, be prevented from being married if that’s what they want? And why should consenting adults be prevented from being married if that’s what they want?
However, “love is love” assumes all kinds of things about love that just aren’t true.
10 comments
CC: “The slogan “love is love” seems to show up everywhere.
Behind the slogan is an assertion: that the sincerity of affection is enough to justify any relationship, especially same-sex relationships, and that’s enough for that relationship to be called “marriage.”
But that doesn’t take into account that same-sex sexual activities can’t result in BABIES! And that that means only male/female relationships can be called marriage!!”
After all, who’s to say who can and can’t love each other?
Well, considering Josh Buggar destroying your right to be bigots to those not exactly like you it’s we - the latter - that have more than every right in the world to not only say so but to dictate what you can & can’t think .
As we’re more than infinitely superior to you - and not just in terms of morals - you only have the right to STFU in perpetuity. After all: Josh Buggar made sure of that.
He certainly made sure that hypocrites - such as you - never had the right to have opinions in the first place.
@PLMMJ #227796
I actually read some of that (the synopsis), and they’re just making all the usual homophobic fundie points that are either PRATTs or non sequiturs or strawmen, or whatever. Like (to paraphrase) “if you approve of homosexual relationships or polyamory, you also have to approve of sexual relationships between parents and children or between siblings” and so forth. They even went with the “if everyone was gay, there’d be no children, so humans would die off” bit, which is nonsense on several different levels.
“However, “love is love” assumes all kinds of things about love that just aren’t true.”
Note this is a secular nation, no matter what Pat Robertson fantasized, so anything about biblical prohibitions isn’t useful.
Sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo What else you got?
You know, you were doing really well, until that last paragraph. Now you just sound like a typical homophobic bigot, having a big whinge in June.
However, “love is love” assumes all kinds of things about love that just aren’t true.
Maybe, but the same is at the very, very least as true for Republican “Family Values™”. I mean, have you seem US protestant divorce statistics?
@TheKingOfRhye #227817
Let me own up to something: the actual reason I didn’t include that part was because without the context of the video, it looks like the last point they’re saying something normal (for other readers, the original talked about “any” relationship between consenting adults)
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
