The homosexual marriage movement is an attack on human rights in the name of human rights. It seeks to disenfranchise voters on the legal definition of marriage and to force unwilling citizens to provide discriminatory benefits and subsidies for a lifestyle choice most find to be disgusting and damaging.
56 comments
For the last time: the majority has no right to remove rights from the minority because of its own personal prejudices. You have no right to vote in a reduction of rights for others. That is mob rule and I'm pretty sure your constitution protects the people from it. Hence the overturning of Prop. 8.
Whatever you think of homosexuals, what they do and what benefits they receive does not affect you in the least bit. Hence, your opinion here does not fucking matter.
"a lifestyle choice most find to be disgusting and damaging"
Christianity?
Being gay isn't a choice, shit-for-brains.
When you can shown that allowing homosexuals to marry has any negative effect whatsoever on heterosexuals and their right to marry, then you can whine. Until then, just shut the fuck up and mind your own bloody business.
Yes because marriage is a human right, not straight humans, but all humans?
So by that logic, gay's are not human?
wow
Yo, Jim, I'm really happy for you, and imma let you finish, but Fred Phelps is one of the best homophobes of all time!
Yeah, well I hate providing discriminatory benefits for big corporations and the richest Americans and subsidies for Bush's choice to start a war that I find disgusting and damaging. But I pay my taxes without a peep because that's the price of living in this country.
In other words, suck it up and shut it up, loser!
That's the most ridiculous and convoluted argument I've heard since, "Our all-powerful God came to earth to sacrifice himself to himself to circumvent a rule he himself made."
Congratulations, you're FUBAR!
"The homosexual marriage movement is an attack on human rights in the name of human rights."
Excuse me?
"It seeks to disenfranchise voters on the legal definition of marriage and to force unwilling citizens to provide discriminatory benefits and subsidies for a lifestyle choice most find to be disgusting and damaging."
Nobody gives a fuck what "most people" think. Everyone has the innate right to equal treatment under all laws (with certain exceptions for age, mental status, etc).
Wait- gay marriage is an attack on human rights by using human rights?
The whack logic, it burns!!!!!
The miscegenation movement is an attack on human rights in the name of human rights. It seeks to disenfranchise voters on the legal definition of marriage and to force unwilling citizens to provide discriminatory benefits and subsidies for a lifestyle choice most find to be disgusting and damaging.
Same shit, different decade.
If "most" find it disgusting and damaging, how come more and more countries adopt gender-neutral marriage laws?
I find the boxing and mud-wrestling lifestyles to be kind of disgusting, and the former definitely damaging. I'm not trying to outlaw them anyway. People are allowed to make stupid* choices with their life; as long as they don't harm others, it's their business.
* The "stupid" was aimed at hitting each other until one becomes unconscious (i.e. boxing). Not at homosexuals, although homosexuals, just as heterosexuals, sometimes make stupid choices when selecting a partner.
I'd wager nasty divorces have more of an effect on you than gay marriages. Rising house prices due to increased demand (a couple who lived in one house now lives in two). Increased pollution as the couple now has to travel more to see any kids. Besides, your friend Jesus kind of had a thing against divorce. You know: "what God hath joined together let no man tear asunder".
The homosexual marriage movement is an attack on human rights in the name of human rights.
It seeks to disenfranchise voters on the legal definition of marriage...
...and to force unwilling citizens to provide discriminatory benefits and subsidies for a lifestyle choice most find to be disgusting and damaging.
OK, then, if we held a vote and a majority voted to outlaw Christianity because people find it disgusting and damaging, would that be OK? Funny how it's always the people in the majority who are willing to vote on the rights of the people in the minority.
It's like he just threw nasty-sounding words together.
Homosexuals are discouraging the penile system by way of hurling jowels at unwed teenage mothers, which discharges people to communistically indulge in venereal diseases!
The, pick one (women's suffrage/black equality) movement is an attack on human rights in the name of human rights. It seeks to disenfranchise (white, male) voters on the legal definition of personal worth and force unwilling (white, male) citizens to provide discriminatory benefits and subsidies to people that most white males find to be disgusting and damaging.
force unwilling citizens to provide discriminatory benefits
What "discriminatory benefits and subsidies"? Married people already enjoy "discriminatory benefits and subsidies". All gay couples are asking for is to get the same "discriminatory benefits and subsidies" marries couples already have.
It seeks to disenfranchise voters on the legal definition of marriage
In the US, voters are always "disenfranchised" when they attempt to vote for things that violate the Constitution. If you don't like it, change the Constitution. Good luck with that.
Seeing as some of the rights homosexual partners are being denied are bought and paid for by these people themselves, you are full of shit.
The USA != an Ochlocracy.
Btw I learned a new word today because of this post. Thank you #1227407, I looked up the term 'mob rule' because of you. :D
"It seeks to disenfranchise voters on the legal definition of marriage"
See, this doesn't make sense. This is more of the " not letting me persecute others in the name of my beliefs is persecution!"
I hate you. I hate your friends.
The homosexual marriage movement is an attack on human rights in the name of human rights.
Sense, it makes none.
It seeks to disenfranchise voters on the legal definition of marriage and to force unwilling citizens to provide discriminatory benefits and subsidies for a lifestyle choice most find to be disgusting and damaging.
I have to pay taxes for people like you even though I think you're "disgusting and damaging."
Topix is completely under the control of the Teabaggers.
What was ironic was that early in the gay marriage argument the site held a poll and every single state ended up listed as Pro-Gay marriage, but then the Freepers and the Birthers showed up and reversed everything.
"The homosexual marriage movement is an attack on human rights in the name of human rights. "
This is what happens when we allow right wing extremists to set definition terms. You will start seeing mutually exclusive words treated as being the same. Needless to say I wonder if they really understand most of the words they use, or if they just repeat words like a parrot.
You don't understand how courts work, do you? Also, if the decision is left to a public vote, then people get to vote on it, which is denying exactly 0 eligible voters from voting.
The homosexual marriage movement is an attack on human rights in the name of human rights
That doesn't even make sense.
It seeks to disenfranchise voters on the legal definition of marriage
Newsflash: Human rights are not up for popular vote; the law is not a democracy.
force unwilling citizens to provide discriminatory benefits and subsidies
You'll have the same freedom to marry as you do now. How is that discriminatory?
for a lifestyle choice most find to be disgusting and damaging.
1) Not a choice. 2) Irrelevant.
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.
