Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12

Hybrid View

  1. #1 Gays and Atheists Joined at the Lip 
    HR Corporate Scum patriot45's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Plant City, Florida
    Posts
    10,917
    Always amusing take by Burt Prelutsky.

    Joined at the lip

    Recently, I noticed a similarity between atheists and homosexuals that hadn’t 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 they’ve cobbled together with spit and glue.

    It just seems to me that it’s 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 don’t 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, isn’t 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 aren’t 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 doesn’t 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 they’ve 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!

    : “Grow your own dope. Plant a liberal.”
    ” Obummercare, 20 percent of the time it works everytime.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,852
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    An Adversary of Linda #'s
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    22,891
    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    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 ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,852
    Quote Originally Posted by megimoo View Post
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    HR Corporate Scum patriot45's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Plant City, Florida
    Posts
    10,917
    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    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.

    : “Grow your own dope. Plant a liberal.”
    ” Obummercare, 20 percent of the time it works everytime.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #6  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    272
    Quote Originally Posted by patriot45 View Post
    Why not? They are both very vocal minorities who want to change normal people.
    "Normal people"

    Holy fucking shit.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #7  
    An Adversary of Linda #'s
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    22,891
    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    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 ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #8  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,852
    Quote Originally Posted by megimoo View Post
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #9  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    11,970
    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    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.
    Last edited by lacarnut; 01-16-2009 at 02:01 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #10  
    CU's Tallest Midget! PoliCon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh PA
    Posts
    25,328
    Quote Originally Posted by lacarnut View Post
    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.
    Stand up for what is right, even if you have to stand alone.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •