Home Archives Random Quotes Latest Comments Top 100 Submit Quote Search Log In Forums

Quote# 88786

If you want the legal coverage of you being in a perverse relationship, then call it a union and ask for legal protections from the government.

But the fact that this is "not enough" for the activists proves it's not about the government providing the same "legal rights" but rather an attack on religion and God, trying to force their own false religion on the rest of us and trying to use the government to force and establish this false religion on society, passing laws to establish this false religion, to establish this false religious definition of marriage, all of which is a violation of the First Ammendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, which is exactly what they'd be doing if they pass laws forcing us to accept their new religion.

People do not have a "Constitutional right" to have the government force their religion of perverse desires on the rest of society and for government to establish this new religion.

You have legal rights via civil unions. That you demand the "right" for the government to make a new religion instead and make laws establishing it says it all and is the only true violation of the Constitution.

Reason2012, OneNewsNow 50 Comments [8/6/2012 5:19:49 PM]
Fundie Index: 45
WTF?! || meh
Username:
Comment:



1 2
#1431832
SpukiKitty

Gayness is a RELIGION?

So! Do these bozos think there's temples with altars to Nathan Lane or something? I'll bet the the vestments are FAAAAABBBULOUS!


8/7/2012 6:22:26 AM
#1431870
Darwin

Nobody is forcing anything on you. It's just about permitting someone the same rights you already have. None of my gay friends would slam their throbbing fuckstick into your tight puckered bunghole unless you asked them to.

And I'll bet you're too closeted to ask.

8/7/2012 7:36:11 AM
#1431886
Ozymandias

Let's pretend for one minute that you're not insanely wrong and that homosexuality is a religion. You would then be correct in that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. But you seem to be forgetting the next part of the 1st Amendment; Congress shall make no law preventing the free-exercise of a religion either. Which means limiting marriage to heterosexuals is also unconstitutional.

So stop fantasizing about cocks and suck on that instead, bitch.

8/7/2012 8:30:17 AM
#1431892
Anon-e-moose

"You have legal rights via civil unions. That you demand the "right" for the government to make a new religion instead and make laws establishing it says it all and is the only true violation of the Constitution."

Holland's King William of Orange was one proponent of Protestant Christianity that, via his power & influence centuries ago, became the basis of what your beliefs are today, pal. And speaking of today, re. Holland:



85% of people can't be wrong.

8/7/2012 8:53:49 AM
#1431902
Papabear

No one has ever been able to explain to me why allowing other people to get married effects his/her marriage.

8/7/2012 9:19:29 AM
#1431929
Mister Spak

Papabear:

When homos get married the current 10 year olds will associate marriage with icky homos.

Ten years later when it's time for them to marry the association of 'marriage' with something icky homos do will cause them to decide not to be married.

This is not snark, this is what they really think. I heard this once in the early 90s when a radio talk show host twisted a fundies arm on the air until he finally explained it. I read it several times again in 2004 when the SCOTAS said sodomy laws were unconstitutional and MA allowed same sex marriage.

8/7/2012 10:50:14 AM
#1431972
Ebon

You have no understanding of either the law or homosexuality. Educate yourself.

8/7/2012 2:11:17 PM
#1431997
shykid

"But the fact that this is "not enough" for the activists proves it's not about the government providing the same "legal rights" but rather an attack on religion and God"

Honestly, what pisses me off about this kind of thinking isn't really the persecution complex, but the sheer arrogance required to think that your religious beliefs are that relevant. I don't give a shit about you. I don't give a shit about your religious beliefs. Fucking get over yourself.

8/7/2012 3:14:20 PM
#1432008
Seeker Lancer

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, which is exactly what they'd be doing if they pass laws forcing us to accept their new religion."

By that line of reasoning we should strike the word "marriage" from our laws since it apparently has a religious connotation. I'd be good with that.

8/7/2012 3:43:16 PM
#1432016
The Anonymous

Why does everything the fundies and wingnuts hate have to be a religion? Socialism, evolution, abortion, liberalism, environmentalism, atheism, and homosexuality too? Just ridiculous.

8/7/2012 4:05:28 PM
#1432022
VioletBeauregarde

Uhhh, dude? Homosexuality is NOT a religion! Reason2012, huh? What an ironic username for someone who seems to so lack reason!

8/7/2012 4:25:17 PM
#1432031
Alencon

First evolution was a religion, then atheism was a religion and now homosexuality is a religion?

Can these people actually be this fucking stupid?

8/7/2012 4:41:20 PM
#1432037
farpadokly

Weakest argument ever. Starts from a premise so stupid that I can't even be bothered to type more.

8/7/2012 5:01:19 PM
#1432055
Berny

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

Being gay is not a religion. Hating gays and refusing them equal rights is part of your religious dogma. As such, congress can make no law respecting your dogma.
It's actually quite simple.

8/7/2012 6:45:36 PM
#1432057
tracer

But lemme guess ... Christianity ISN'T a religion, it's a personal relationship with Jesus. Right?

8/7/2012 6:48:42 PM
#1432153
WWWWolf

So mandating no gay marriage, specifically under religious objections, is not a violation of First Amendment... but mandating gay marriage under no religious pressures is a violation?

8/8/2012 5:14:43 AM
#1432276


"People do not have a "Constitutional right" to have the government force their religion of perverse desires on the rest of society"

So, why do you keep demanding that the government do just that? After all, YOU are demanding the Gov force YOUR religious belief onto everyone...

Isn't it funny how those who are being unconstitutional are the first ones to scream about how their constitutional rights are being violated...?

8/8/2012 10:07:33 AM
#1432321
anonymous #42

Civil Unions do not bestow all of the rights that a marriage does. Your argument is invalid.

And hateful. And very, very stupid.

Also, for the record the right "to establish this false religious definition of marriage" isn't yours either. Marriage was around long before your religion was and likely will continue to be after your religion dies out, assuming you morons don't kill us or get us killed.

8/8/2012 12:43:56 PM
#1432396
ToxicInfluence

Well, I'm from the uk so I'm not entirely sure how it works over there, but surely if homosexuality is now a religion, you can apply for tax exemption for "The Big-Gay" church?
We could watch them scream at the mere suggestion :P

8/8/2012 5:21:17 PM
#1432398
ToxicInfluence

Gah, double post ><

8/8/2012 5:23:34 PM
#1432512
Pup

"People do not have a "Constitutional right" to have the government force their religion of perverse desires on the rest of society and for government to establish this new religion. "

Oh the irony.

8/9/2012 3:56:27 AM
#1432857
Oh My Dog!

Things that fundies also think are religions:

Atheism
Science
Evolution
Liberalism, because all liberals are atheists after all.

Things fundies think are religious if you include "Satanism":

Harry Potter, especially since Dumbledore is gay. I thought their heads would never stop exploding over that.

My Little Ponies
Nike
Pokemon...

Well, you get the idea.

8/9/2012 10:07:12 PM
#1433333
Wyzard

I think this is the Establishment Clause that the OP wants to see:


8/11/2012 5:22:41 AM
#1434835
FinalArbiterOfMyMorality

Definition of religion per Dictionary.com:

"a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs."

How does homosexuality fit that definition, and, how does Christianity not?

8/14/2012 9:14:24 AM
#1446574
TheLastCenturion

alright, as much as hate this guy, and (pretty much) everything he said, however ive heard this argument before.

if the issue boiled down to "i dont care what they do, just dont call it marriage" then i would have to side with the christians. it never boils down to just that, but it is an extremely reasonable position. if "marriage" is the word for the religious institution, then there should not be a problem with having a "civil union"(i am assuming here that civil unions are exactly the same as marriages, just not done by a religious figure or "under god"). it seems like a very reasonable compromise. of course, again, i am assuming that a marriage and a civil union both have the exact same legal ramifications

9/12/2012 2:43:35 PM
1 2