PDA

View Full Version : Gays and Atheists Joined at the Lip



patriot45
01-16-2009, 12:40 PM
Always amusing take by Burt Prelutsky.

Joined at the lip (http://townhall.com/Columnists/BurtPrelutsky/2009/01/16/gays_and_atheists_joined_at_the_lip)


Recently, I noticed a similarity between atheists and homosexuals that hadnít occurred to me before. It has to do with the way they wage their wars. Basically, they erect straw men, put words in their straw mouths, and then engage in battle with these creatures theyíve cobbled together with spit and glue.

It just seems to me that itís high time we began setting the record straight. To begin with, there is no such thing as homophobia. A phobia is defined as a fear or anxiety that exceeds normal proportions. Concocting the word was simply a rather sly way of suggesting that it is heterosexuals who are deviant. The other lie that is parroted with some frequency is that those who donít fully support the gay agenda are most likely latent homosexuals, which is supposed to suggest, I assume, that lurking inside every heterosexual man is an interior decorator screaming to get out and do something about those curtains.

Odd, isnít it, that you never hear about latent heterosexuals?

Even the ancient Greeks, to whom modern-day gays enjoy comparing themselves, never engaged in anything quite as bizarre as same-sex marriages.

The proof that heterosexual men arenít all sitting around fantasizing being seduced by Boy George or Richard Chamberlain is that every heterosexual man I know prefers having his cavity worked on by a dentist than by a proctologist.



Homosexuals like to picture themselves as the innocent victims of the oppressive majority. The recent unpleasantness on behalf of same-sex marriages doesnít happen to be a response to laws depriving gays of any rights or privileges to which they are otherwise entitled. They are as free as theyíve always been to marry members of the opposite sex. For several millenniums, everyone has understood marriage to mean the sacred union of a man and a woman. I have asked on more than one occasion if the institution of marriage is to be turned on its head to accommodate the ludicrous demands of a very small number of people, on what moral or legal basis does society than deny fathers and daughters, mothers and sons, or, say, your cousin Phyllis and a dozen Elvis impersonators, from tying the knot. If the parties merely need to be consenting adults, on what basis could you prevent Hugh Hefner and his bevy of blonde companions from pledging their troth before man and God? I have yet to receive a response.


continued for Wilbur! (http://townhall.com/Columnists/BurtPrelutsky/2009/01/16/gays_and_atheists_joined_at_the_lip?page=full&comments=true)

wilbur
01-16-2009, 12:55 PM
Sadly, the article starts out with the predictable, common tactic.... accuse the opposition of any negative characteristic or aspect you possess before they can accuse you... its more effective if youre the first to throw the accusation. He criticizes atheists/homosexuals for constructing straw men, and then builds straw men by misrepresenting atheists and homosexuals.

If anyone here thinks this fellow raises good points, I encourage you to expand your horizons and learn a thing or two.

megimoo
01-16-2009, 01:02 PM
Sadly, the article starts out with the predictable, common tactic.... accuse the opposition of any negative characteristic or aspect you possess before they can accuse you... its more effective if youre the first to throw the accusation. He criticizes atheists/homosexuals for constructing straw men, and then builds straw men by misrepresenting atheists and homosexuals.

If anyone here thinks this fellow raises good points, I encourage you to expand your horizons and learn a thing or two.As the reigning Bay Area master of the 'circular argument' How very predictable of you willie ,But Is it true,is there commonality ?

wilbur
01-16-2009, 01:13 PM
As the reigning Bay Area master of the 'circular argument' How very predictable of you willie ,But Is it true,is there commonality ?

No. I do think that combining atheism and homosexuality into one article is a way probably an effective way to double the page views.... two religious right boogeymen all for the price of one article. But its not really a useful comparison.

patriot45
01-16-2009, 01:25 PM
No. I do think that combining atheism and homosexuality into one article is a way probably an effective way to double the page views.... two religious right boogeymen all for the price of one article. But its not really a useful comparison.

Why not? They are both very vocal minorities who want to change normal people.

megimoo
01-16-2009, 01:32 PM
No. I do think that combining atheism and homosexuality into one article is a way probably an effective way to double the page views.... two religious right boogeymen all for the price of one article. But its not really a useful comparison.I rather enjoyed the comparison .I find much the same denials both faulting the creator that the one denies .Being an atheistic is a lonely,hopeless business and denying creation is by definition demonic but if you deny the creator you would also deny his fallen creations.

Just where do you feel we all came from willie ?Did we,in your vision,crawl from the primeval slime and stand erect ?How do you explain the frontal lobes ?Are they simply a product of evolution and if so why did they evolve ?

lacarnut
01-16-2009, 01:57 PM
Sadly, the article starts out with the predictable, common tactic.... accuse the opposition of any negative characteristic or aspect you possess before they can accuse you... its more effective if youre the first to throw the accusation. He criticizes atheists/homosexuals for constructing straw men, and then builds straw men by misrepresenting atheists and homosexuals.

If anyone here thinks this fellow raises good points, I encourage you to expand your horizons and learn a thing or two.

I encourage you to take a college comprehension course. Your lack of deduction is evident. Since you have so many homo friends, why do they have to exhibit their disgusting behavior in public? For example, Gay Pride Day in S.F. and at Clinton's Inaugural Day parade where these freaks show their tits and peckers.

Many Homos and atheists use the same tatics of indoctrination especially in trying to teach kids as young as 5 and 6 year old their lifestyles of which are in a minority.

PoliCon
01-16-2009, 02:05 PM
I encourage you to take a college comprehension course. Your lack of deduction is evident. Since you have so many homo friends, why do they have to exhibit their disgusting behavior in public? For example, Gay Pride Day in S.F. and at Clinton's Inaugural Day parade where these freaks show their tits and peckers.

Many Homos and atheists use the same tatics of indoctrination especially in trying to teach kids as young as 5 and 6 year old their lifestyles of which are in a minority.you mean the Folsom street fair in San Francisco.

wilbur
01-16-2009, 02:14 PM
I rather enjoyed the comparison .I find much the same denials both faulting the creator that the one denies .Being an atheistic is a lonely,hopeless business and denying creation is by definition demonic but if you deny the creator you would also deny his fallen creations.


There an actual point hidden in that inarticulate mess there megs?



Just where do you feel we all came from willie ?Did we,in your vision,crawl from the primeval slime and stand erect ?How do you explain the frontal lobes ?Are they simply a product of evolution and if so why did they evolve ?

Big questions that don't all have answers yet. I have no aversion to answering the first one with a big fat "I don't know and neither do you". It is much more honourable to recognize the limits of our knowledge, than to pretend we know what we, as of yet, cannot know.

megimoo
01-16-2009, 02:50 PM
There an actual point hidden in that inarticulate mess there megs?



Big questions that don't all have answers yet. I have no aversion to answering the first one with a big fat "I don't know and neither do you". It is much more honourable to recognize the limits of our knowledge, than to pretend we know what we, as of yet, cannot know.
I sometimes tend to ramble a mite willie.

As for your humility in admitting your limitations I am impressed but you presume much in my regard .You seemed so sure of the definitions of human life in the previous discussions .I wish I had chosen to debate as an elective while I was being educated but I suppose the face to face is more important to prevailing than the circular ploys ?

Ringo
01-16-2009, 05:36 PM
Why not? They are both very vocal minorities who want to change normal people.

"Normal people"

Holy fucking shit.

Defiant1
01-16-2009, 06:20 PM
Sadly, the article starts out with the predictable, common tactic.... accuse the opposition of any negative characteristic or aspect you possess before they can accuse you... its more effective if youre the first to throw the accusation. He criticizes atheists/homosexuals for constructing straw men, and then builds straw men by misrepresenting atheists and homosexuals.

If anyone here thinks this fellow raises good points, I encourage you to expand your horizons and learn a thing or two.


If expanding horizons means smoking a dick or taking one in the tail pipe........no thanks.