"The Stoning of Sally Kern"

Sarah Palin was crucified by reality. Does that count?...

You left off St. Catherine of the Wheel and St. Polycarp the Fireproof.

By what bizzaro standard does anyone declare their own martyrdom....I guess pride is off the sin scale at the Mount Olive Bullshit Hut where her repulsive husband feeds off the persecution fantasies of congenital idiots.

I wonder who wrote if for her....and who read it to her when it was done.

Perhaps Silly Sally would be better off if she were Kidnapped by Lesbian Pirates from Outer Space!

Any excuse to link this one more time...

http://digitalcuttlefish.blogspot.com/2008/03/ballad-of-sally-kern-redu…

Or the original, without video:

http://digitalcuttlefish.blogspot.com/2008/03/ballad-of-sally-kern.html

Army of Lovers should also be listed as martyrs!
"Army of Lovers-Crucified"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYT2aWavXlc

I thought Polycarp was a pokemon, not a martyr...

Yeah. Members of the Christian leadership do vile things all the time and for the most part are never called on it. Not only that, the wingnuts will cheer them on in their vile actions while the moderates just keep silent, giving tacit consent.

Er...it does, rather. Piss me off, that is. Though I wouldn't call it blasphemy, just idiotic, mean, and generally un-Christ-like.

I suppose that comes off kind of like a drive by posting. I'm a devoted reader because of my unhealthy obsession with retroviruses, just almost never post.

I love the customer tags the book is already getting:

virulent homophobia(352)
bigot(302)
christofascism(302)
delusional self-martyring harpie(261)
bigoted(247)
hater(244)
vanity publishing(231)
opportunistic maggot(229)
unconstitutional theocracy(225)
fascist(206)

LOL! Well done, internet!

someone put a recording of something she said on YouTube, and her comments, which she still stands by, grossed everyone out. 2008 CE.

"Someone" put the video up? Okay, it's like this...the someone is the gay lesbian victory action fund. They have an agenda of electing gays to government office, among other goals. In the video Sally Kern talks about the homosexual agenda. It would be like, to put it in terms liberals can understand, if the KKK put out a video mocking Al Sharpton for claiming the KKK were racists. It's about as surreal as I've seen in a long time.

Also, other than hoping to get Christians angry about the comments of Sally Kern in the video (good luck with that), what is it about Sally Kern you want them to take her to task for? I.e, what is the "worse", specifically?

They have an agenda of electing gays to government office

Yeah, because wanting someone of your minority demographic in a position of power so you don't get stomped on is such a horrible idea...

I guess you hate then how to be elected as a Republican you have to be white, rich, Christian, and preferably male.

Sally Kern talks about the homosexual agenda.

No she doesn't. She talked about how countries that embrace equality end after a few decades, gays are worse than terrorists, and need to be treated like a cancer; not ignored, but taken care of.

what is it about Sally Kern you want them to take her to task for?

Being a homophobic, bigoted, pretentious, arrogant, self-aggrandized, bitch who says what she says in the name of a religion that claims to be about love and tolerance and then claims to be a victim by writing a book about being "stoned" for her nauseating ideals.

Did I miss anything there?

Mobius (#8), that's it exactly! And they wonder why we don't like them very much. Could be the stench of hypocrisy, or maybe the wooden-headedness.

Martin (#3/4), if Imma disagree with you, it's because the nice girls from outer space do not deserve to be forced to share time with the likes of Kern.

Willy, it doesn't matter who posted the video. What matters is that Sally Kern said something that makes her look like a horrible person by any reasonable light, and that instead of calling her on it you and all the rest of her good believing fan club cheer her on. If Kern is going to demonstrate once again that she's a bigot and a homophobe, she doesn't get to call herself a martyr.

Your analogy is not only poorly done, but distasteful, and you should be ashamed of yourself for attempting to conflate people trying to gain equal rights before the law with an organization that existed to prevent that same extension of liberty.

Granted, expecting the likes of you to have the introspection to understand why this puts you beneath contempt would be overly optimistic...and overly generous.

The MadPanda, FCD

Your analogy is not only poorly done, but distasteful, and you should be ashamed of yourself for attempting to conflate people trying to gain equal rights before the law with an organization that existed to prevent that same extension of liberty.

Do you have any evidence whatsoever that, before the law, homosexuals even suffer a disparate impact, let alone out-and-out second class status? For example--statistics that homosexuals suffer a disparate impact in the criminal justice system? That cops are camping outside of gay bars to give gays DUI tickets? That homosexuals are audited more by the IRS? (Not that disparate impact is sufficient, or should be sufficient, to establish un-equal treatment. Men, after all, are subject to the criminal justice system to a much greater extent than women, but disparate impact is at least a shred of evidence, and I question whether you have even that).

Dangly Willy: In most states, gays can't marry the person they love. Is that enough of a disparate impact for you?

You do know that marriage automatically grants on the order of one kiloright, right? From tax advantages to insurance discounts to probate questions to child support to hospital visitation rights to dozens of other areas.

You know, if you weren't so convinced that women are inferior, you wouldn't be so worried about the rise of freedom for men who seem womanly to you. (Cause let's face it, you aren't nearly so concerned about the lesbian agenda, now are you?)

Willy, thank you for living down to my expectation of your character and ability to respond intelligently.

You liken an oppressed minority to an organization dedicated to oppression...and when this is pointed out, you retort 'prove that they're oppressed'.

Son, where I grew up, coming out of the closet could get someone killed. Sad to say, it still might, largely because of people like you, Phelps, and Kern. But they're not oppressed: just because they can be fired without cause or recourse, can't marry the person of their choice, enjoy the simple freedom to be themselves without fear of death threats...that's all immaterial.

As for second-class citizenship...let's see: denial of child custody. Denial of inheritance. Denial of visitation rights by hospitals. Denial of adoptions.

But oh, dear, get told that you have to think of them as human beings with all the rights and privileges thereunto pertaining, and you get all defensive!

Last time I checked, there is no secret brotherhood of gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgendered persons out burning crosses on straight people's lawns, nor lynching them for daring to glance at someone of the opposite sex. Got evidence to the contrary? Let's see some. Hearsay doesn't count: documentation of pink hoods and burning churches full of your co-religionists, or the comparison is invalid.

In brief, Little Willie, you may wish to observe the first rule of holes: you're in one.

The MadPanda, FCD

"gays can't marry the person they love." BS. A zoophile cannot marry the animal s/he loves. Even so, a zoophile can marry a person of the opposite sex, just like heterosexuals. A polygamist is not allowed to marry the women he loves. But he is allowed to marry just one woman, like any other man is allowed. Equal protection of the laws means the law is applied to all equally, and in the case of marriage, it is. Governments have historically had an interest in marriage laws, and have conferred benefits to encourage heterosexual marriage. Government recognition of marriage, and the conferring of benefits for married people, is social engineering. Liberals love social engineering, except when it comes to encouraging the creation of marriage and future tax payers.

"Denial of inheritance." BS. Homosexuals are allowed to write wills.

"denial of child custody." BS. Men are denied custody more often than homosexuals.

"Denial of visitation rights by hospitals." BS. In addition, at least one state has a law that specifically protects the right of homosexual patients to have any visitor they want, as well as the right of the patient to select anybody he or she wants to make medical decisions.

"Denial of adoptions." BS. Adoption should not be a right. Citizens have a right collectively to make rules regarding adoption, whether against single parent adoption, homosexual adoption, inter-ethnic adoption, or whatever, so long as it is done even handedly, and with the child's interest in mind, and with a rational basis.

"just because they can be fired without cause or recourse" BS. Almost all workers can be fired without cause or recourse, unless they are in a union or are working under a negotiated contract.

It's laughable the way modern leftists think. They want the freedom to participate in historically family oriented downtown parades wearing g-strings, but they don't think I should have the freedom to light my home with incandescent light bulbs. They want to force churches to hire transgender day care providers, but they don't think we should have the freedom to choose a high-flow toilet so that we don't have to have plungers at the ready. They want the right to stick hamsters and other items in their partner's orifices, but they don't think my children should be free to get a toy with a happy meal at McDonalds. They want to restrict urban sprawl and McMansions, but they want the right to have a gay bar in any strip mall they see fit.

A zoophile cannot marry the animal s/he loves.

So animals and humans are of equivalent moral status in your world. Got it.

No Mithrandir, you're misreading Little Willy. homosexuals and animals are of equivalent moral status.

Worse. Willy thinks (and I use that term advisably) that gays aren't male and vice versa. I mean, if gays don't have to worry about child custody because men are denied more often...does not follow, Your Flaccidness. Maybe a little actual dose of reality is required?

Willy, why do you think that ruling on visitation rights exists? It's because wonderful examples of right-thinking individuals like you had to be forced to grant them. Ditto with wills being contested (there was a dickens of a case in Texas over this sort of crap a while back).

As for adoptions...son, I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt and call you ignorant rather than stupid, but I doubt very much you know whereof you speak. Suffice to say that more than a few willing and capable adoptive parents have been refused flat-out for a reason that is not exactly rational...but since you agree with the bigotry expressed, you probably wouldn't agree with the facts.

If things are better now than they were twenty years ago, it isn't because of people like you, Willy. It's in spite of you, every fucking step of the way. You are expending great effort to ensure your place on the rubbish heap of history, on the wrong side of the issue. One wonders why.

Your last paragraph is simply further evidence that you are fully qualified as a doubleplusgood duckspeaker.

The MadPanda, FCD

William asks us to prove that any homosexuals are discriminated against by the law.

William is given nine specific examples.

William brings up a few laws proving that in some places some homosexuals are granted some of these rights.

William's end zone looks like a mine field after a parade, from all the holes where the goal posts used to be.

Oh look, little willy's back.

Still waiting for him to explain how stating that homosexuality is worse than terrorism is not really all that bad, and poor, stupid fags should just accept such talk if they want to be allowed to carry on with their sick, perverted lifestyles in public.

I love how christians, who are a majority in this country, always seem to act like there's 4 of them, and the zombies are outside the cabin.

Or how conservatives, who love to bash the 'culture of victimhood' are so very willing to take up that mantle when it serves their needs.

Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but [they are commanded] to be under obedience, as also saith the law.

Remarkable how poor those Christians™ are at reading their own Bible.

Simple Silly Willy is banned at The Panda's Thumb and Pharyngula for "insipidity" and "stupidity" .

In this thread, he has shown us again his capacity for those attributes.

His defense of Sally Kern's homophobic diatribe is nothing short of disgusting and deserves only contempt.

I am not sure ERV will ban, but I do strongly suggest that Wee Willy just be totally ignored. Although it may be fun (and very easy) to shoot down his very foolish crap, he posts just to get the satisfaction of your replies - "Look, people give me attention!"

"gays can't marry the person they love." BS. A zoophile cannot marry the animal s/he loves.

As has no doubt been explained to you ad nauseam, this is because animals are incapable of giving informed consent to a legal contract, just like minors, or inanimate objects. Pointing out that zoophiles cannot marry animals is completely irrelevant, in just the same manner that pointing out that a watermelon has never been elected to public office is irrelevant to the question of discrimination in politics.

Equal protection of the laws means the law is applied to all equally, and in the case of marriage, it is.

It is not, because gays cannot marry the person of their choice in the manner that straights can. Rocket science this ain't.

This is hilarious. As if we needed more evidence that leftists cannot form a coherent argument. I'll stop back from time to time to see if anybody is able to refute #18.

Already done a thousand times elsewhere, Willy.

You're not even wrong. But just keep ignoring reality, why don'tcha?

Insipid, boring, and bigoted...that's not a good combination.

The MadPanda, FCD

OK, Willy. I'm bored so I'll answer some of your statements. Although being a woman, I suppose you will ignore me because you think women are inferior.

1. I'm hetero, married, with children. If my husband dies, even without a will I will inherit his estate (or a certain portion; I forget how estates are divided when children are involved.) We don't need a will for me to inherit. My cousin, who is gay, and married in the state of Massachusetts, has to have a will to leave his estate to his spouse. Otherwise, his estate will be given to his blood relatives instead of his spouse.
2. If my husband is hospitalized in any state of the union, I can visit him. No hospital will deny me those rights (unless specified by the patient). My cousin could be denied the rights to be at the bedside of his partner in many states and in many hospitals.
3. Tax benefits. We can file "married, filing jointly" and get the tax break associated with it. My cousin and his spouse cannot as the government does not recognize their marriage.
4. Legal consent: in every state, a person must be old enough to legally consent to marriage, along with having the ability to legally consent. Persons under the legal age (18) often cannot marry without parental consent. Persons who are severely mentally deficient usually cannot legally marry because it is felt they are incapable of giving knowledgeable consent. Animals are incapable of giving legal consent. Therefore, marriage between humans and animals is not possible.. Polygamy has been made illegal by all the states. However, I see no reason that, provided that they occur between adults, that polygamous or polyandrous marriages should be illegal. One problem with polygamy is that a) it usually involved minor females and b)often involved coercion.
5. Firing for homosexuality: well, you are right. Many states are "right to work" states and you can be fired for any reason or no reason at all. However, few people are fired for being heterosexual. Many have been fired for no other reason than homosexuality, especially teachers.
6. Adoption: yes, there is no "right" to adopt. But is it better for a child to stay in foster care, moving from home to home over the years rather than be raised by 2 loving, caring adults who want that child?

As for your leftist agenda crap: actually, I am a liberal and I think there is too much government interference in our lives (happy meal toys, light bulbs, and taxes). However, society is going in that direction and if you don't like it, vote for people who think like you do. Just don't whine if those who don't think like you do win.

WW, here is your refutation of #18. Your cognitive defect (and it is a demonstrable defect that you have) is that you are unable to perceive gay people as human beings, so you are unable to imagine that they are capable of having human feelings such as âloveâ.

This is the cognitive defect that all bigots have, they are unable to imagine that the objects of their bigotry and hatred are actual human beings and so are actually capable of human feelings and human attributes such as love.

That is why you compare them to animals because in your heart-of-hearts that is what you feel that they are, non-human animals, objects that are non-human and so don't deserve being treated as fellow human beings. I have written about it.

http://daedalus2u.blogspot.com/2010/03/physiology-behind-xenophobia.html

It isn't gay people that are stunted and warped, it is those bigots who are unable to recognize other people, including gay people, liberals, atheists, non-Christians, etc. as human beings. That your world view is so distorted and stunted that you can't perceive gay people as human beings is about you.

You probably won't be able to understand what I have written, because to understand it would be to understand that you are a hating bigot, and you probably can't deal with that reality.

It's a sad reflection on the public school system when leftists think shouting "homophobe" is a legitimate form of debate.

Just when you think it reached a peak, it gets even more surreal: Darwinian evolutionists offended by comparisons of men to animals.

How can regular readers of a blog that promotes Darwinian evolution and atheism be offended by comparisons of men loving men with men loving animals? What is love according to your world view?

In any event, deadalus2u, I also compared a man wanting to marry another man with a man who wants to marry multiple women. Did you miss that? Or did I upset your sensibilities to the point that you cannot have a rational discussion? Or are you just feigning an emotional response and hope nobody notices the glaring hole in your logic?

MI Dawn:

1. Your cousin can get married to a person of the opposite sex, just like anybody else.
2. Even if your cousin is gay, very few, if any hospitals in the entire United States will deny his same sex partner visitation rights. See the link in #18. (Only the few hospitals who don't accept patients who get federal aid are exempt from that order). Also, in my state, all hospitals, even if there were private hospitals, must allow patients to select whom will visit them, and who may make medical decisions for them if they are unable. For the record, I support such laws and regulations, so long as I don't have to share a room with a couple, homosexual or heterosexual, who French kiss while my family is visiting.
3. I once knew a biker who had a wife and a girlfriend, all three lived together. The government wouldn't grant him a license to marry the second woman. There would have been tax consequences if it weren't for the minor detail that in his line of work he didn't file tax returns.
4. Legal consent is a legal definition, like marriage is in the context of gay marriage.
5. For example...
6. I agree with Dr. Laura on this. It can be in the best interest of an older and difficult to adopt child to be raised by stable homosexuals than to be bounced from government regulated foster home to government regulated foster home, too many of which have much worse problems.

Post 6. I agree except that we live in a Republic that respects the rights of minorities. And, ditto for the leftists who complain about the so-called Tea Party winning (look at the whinners in Wisconsin, for example). Or of "white flight," "urban sprawl,", and so on.

Big cities are free to have their homo-friendly city governments. But they shouldn't complain when I (and almost all of my friends who grew up in the city) move as far away from the city as we deem necessary to raise a family, and they shouldn't complain when people like us elect a Sally Kern or a Michele Bachmann.

Pointing out that zoophiles cannot marry animals is completely irrelevant, in just the same manner that pointing out that a watermelon has never been elected to public office is irrelevant to the question of discrimination in politics.

Actually, people like Willy would argue that one lied his way into the presidency, if you know what I mean. ;/

owever, I see no reason that, provided that they occur between adults, that polygamous or polyandrous marriages should be illegal.

Gridlock in Next-Of-Kin decisions.

They want the freedom to participate in historically family oriented downtown parades wearing g-strings, but they don't think I should have the freedom to light my home with incandescent light bulbs. They want to force churches to hire transgender day care providers, but they don't think we should have the freedom to choose a high-flow toilet so that we don't have to have plungers at the ready. They want the right to stick hamsters and other items in their partner's orifices, but they don't think my children should be free to get a toy with a happy meal at McDonalds. They want to restrict urban sprawl and McMansions, but they want the right to have a gay bar in any strip mall they see fit.

Unfortunately, right-wingers don't think, because you'll notice that (assuming the garbled reference to the urban legend about 'gerbiling' is taken as hyperbole) - well, hey, all those things you're whining about leftists supposedly wanting to ban (citations please?) actually have tangible consequences that affect other people, whereas the real things behind your hyperbole that you whine about them thinking should be allowed don't demonstrably harm anyone.

It's pretty pathetic that you're too thick to grasp this point.

More issue dodging and red herrings from His Limpness. This is all he's got so I can hardly expect better.

Sad, really: this spewing of inanities and distractions is something he assumes is a clinching argument. Off the table and into somebody's pint of lager, that boy.

Apparently calling a bigot on his bigotry is the equivalent of mob lynching the poor widdle privileged crybaby.

Pathetic.

Oh, and one other thing: Little Willy may not be conscious of it, but he's now repeated at least one argument that was used against a certain court case called Loving v. Virginia, in which the argument that laws against miscegenation were a violation of civil liberty. I leave it up to this fine upstanding example of woodenheaded failure to read the majority decision, figure out where he has gone wrong, and meditate upon his error. (Or, as is more likely, to spew forth more venom like a good little wrong-wing reality denying bigot.)

The MadPanda, FCD

"gays can't marry the person they love." BS. A zoophile cannot marry the animal s/he loves. Even so, a zoophile can marry a person of the opposite sex, just like heterosexuals. A polygamist is not allowed to marry the women he loves. But he is allowed to marry just one woman, like any other man is allowed.

No-one can marry the person they love. Unless, of course, that person gives consent. That is why pedophiles and zoophiles can't marry those they love - they are incapable of giving consent. As for polygamy and consanguinity, there are specific harms that run counter to several of the purposes of recognizing marriage. (I am not necessarily opposed to allowing such marriages, but they are a thornier issue). And it should be pointed out that miscegenation laws were supported using the same argument Limp Willy makes: "A man can marry any woman he loves, a long as she's the same race."

"Denial of inheritance." BS. Homosexuals are allowed to write wills.

And family's routinely challenge these wills, and quite often win. The most famous example is In Re Kaufman's Will. Of a more personal nature (and yes, this is an anecdote), my father-in-law, although he disapproves of gay marriage for religious reasons, has become a proponent of gay marriage because of the experience of a gay co-worker. His co-worker's gay partner passed away, leaving the co-worker most of his estate in his will. The partner's family contested the will and won. Not only that, they had the body buried somewhere and refused to tell the co-worker where.

"denial of child custody." BS. Men are denied custody more often than homosexuals.

I'm going to need a citation, bucko. In several states, being homosexual is enough to prevent award of custody - certainly being a gay ma is going to be worse than being a straight man. Granted, this is slowly being righted, but so is the anti-male bias. Even if your contention were true, all it means is that we need to also fight for father's rights, something which I do support. The proper response to a denial of rights is not to deny others' rights.

"Cultural beliefs that female and heterosexual parents are more fit parents have dominated custody decisions."

Read more: Gay Parents - Becoming Parents And Negotiating Parenthood - Children, Adoption, Child, Couple, Patterson, and Heterosexual http://family.jrank.org/pages/680/Gay-Parents-Becoming-Parents-Negotiat…

"Denial of visitation rights by hospitals." http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/presidential-memorandum-hosp…" rel="nofollow">BS. In addition, at least one state has a law that specifically protects the right of homosexual patients to have any visitor they want, as well as the right of the patient to select anybody he or she wants to make medical decisions.

So I followed Wally's broken link, and guess what? It totally refutes him:

Yet every day, all across America, patients are denied the kindnesses and caring of a loved one at their sides -- whether in a sudden medical emergency or a prolonged hospital stay. Often, a widow or widower with no children is denied the support and comfort of a good friend. Members of religious orders are sometimes unable to choose someone other than an immediate family member to visit them and make medical decisions on their behalf. Also uniquely affected are gay and lesbian Americans who are often barred from the bedsides of the partners with whom they may have spent decades of their lives -- unable to be there for the person they love, and unable to act as a legal surrogate if their partner is incapacitated.

...

My Administration can expand on these important steps to ensure that patients can receive compassionate care and equal treatment during their hospital stays. By this memorandum, I request that you take the following steps:

...

This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

The President issued this memorandum, which does not carry any weight of law, precisely because gays, and certain others, were being denied visitation rights.

"Denial of adoptions." BS. Adoption should not be a right. Citizens have a right collectively to make rules regarding adoption, whether against single parent adoption, homosexual adoption, inter-ethnic adoption, or whatever, so long as it is done even handedly, and with the child's interest in mind, and with a rational basis.

And Willy shows his racism. The point is, it's not being done even-handedly, with the child's interest, or with a rational basis.

"just because they can be fired without cause or recourse" BS. Almost all workers can be fired without cause or recourse, unless they are in a union or are working under a negotiated contract.

You forgot one major exception, Wee Willy Wanker: discrimination. You can't fire someone because he's black. You can't fire someone because she's Christian. But you can fire someone because that person is gay. Also, no other class of citizen is excluded by law from taking certain employment without due process. DADT, anyone?

"garbled link". In this case, the error is sb's.

"It totally refutes him" Quote mining. lmgtfy

"You can't fire someone because he's black. You can't fire someone because she's Christian. But you can fire someone because that person is gay."

Your analysis fails on many counts. People cannot change the race they are born. Whether or not homosexuals are born homosexual is debatable (unless there is a genetic test for homosexuality I haven't heard about, which might be good, if it can be done prenatally, as many families would probably opt to abort an unborn homosexual child, the way some Chinese families abort girls in China, which may lead to laws in the United States against aborting unborn homosexuals, which should lead to some interesting left-wing political cannibalism.)

1) People aren't born Christian, either. And Christians have proven throughout history to be much more dangerous than non-Spartan homosexuals, all things being equal.

2) Are you aware of a genetic test for blackness?

1. But not nearly as dangerous as communist governments.
2. Not sure if you know this, but an awful lot of unborn black children are aborted every day in the United States. Just saying. (...that many liberals would throw a fit if unborn homosexuals were being targeted for abortion because they had the homosexual gene--but for being black, not so much).

2) Are you aware of a genetic test for blackness?

Answer the fucking question.

(...that many liberals would throw a fit if unborn homosexuals were being targeted for abortion because they had the homosexual gene--but for being black, not so much).

Lol. You're a really good troll.

So, Willy, you would have my cousin, who is NOT sexually attracted to women, nor does he LOVE a woman, marry a woman just because that's OK, while he should not marry the man he DOES love and is sexually attracted to? It's OK to make a woman miserable by being married to someone who doesn't love her, isn't attracted to her? And what about lesbians? Should they be forced to marry a man? Even though they are not sexually attracted to men? That's just crap. And shows that you have absolutely no respect towards women (heterosexual and lesbian) and gay men.

Yeah, that aborting of girls in China is working out really well. There are more males than females now, so the males who want to marry women are having trouble finding a partner. Works really well. And as for families opting to abort a homosexual infant - well, aren't you just the sick one. Just because YOU would abort a homosexual infant does not mean that most parents, who love their children no matter what, would do so.

How can regular readers of a blog that promotes Darwinian evolution and atheism be offended by comparisons of men loving men with men loving animals?

Fucking LOL. Maybe because human-human relationships are a bit different in a few key respects.

4. Legal consent is a legal definition, like marriage is in the context of gay marriage.

Yes, and?

More red herrings. Little Willy must be pretty desperate.

Pathetic troll is pathetic.

The MadPanda, FCD

Perhaps Silly Sally would be better off if she were Kidnapped by Lesbian Pirates from Outer Space!
Posted by: martin | March 4, 2011 2:41 PM

Oh, we should all be so lucky. *swoon* ;)

I wonder if Little Willy realizes that if gay marriage was permitted across the land, it still wouldn't be a "special right" for homosexuals. Willy would be permitted to marry any man who would have him.

Now, I don't know of any gay men who would be interested in marrying that skidmark, but it's a big world out there. I'm sure that somewhere there is a special someone just for him.

It's a sad reflection on the public school system when leftists think shouting "homophobe" is a legitimate form of debate.

Except the commenters here actually pointed out where you were wrong, while you simply fall back to imagining all they did was "shout homophobe."

How can regular readers of a blog that promotes Darwinian evolution and atheism be offended by comparisons of men loving men with men loving animals? What">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_basis_for_love">What is love according to your world view?

The point, which appears to be too difficult for your Intelligently Designed brain to understand, is not that zoophilia is "offensive" but that it is completely irrelevant to granting contractual arrangements among informed consenting beings. It is of course completely pointless to point this out to you, as you will predictably resort to strawmanning it, as you did already and will continue to do.

William Wallace is a living non sequitur.

William Wallace wrote:

"families would probably opt to abort an unborn homosexual child"

How Christian of you, William. I think you meant to say "Christian families". The rest of us are not so intolerant.

For posters denigrating Silly Sally, see links below by someone that posts as 'Mitch' on www.demokie.com:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v246/mistymountainhop/Sally_library.j…

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v246/mistymountainhop/AUNT_SALLY.jpg

LINKS 4 SHARING TO FACEBOOK - ETC. - AVAILABEL HERE=
http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v246/mistymountainhop/?action=view¤t=Sally_library.jpg
http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v246/mistymountainhop/?action=view¤t=AUNT_SALLY.jpg

Little Willy think Silence of the Lambs is erotica.

The point, which appears to be too difficult for your Intelligently Designed brain to understand, is not that zoophilia is "offensive" but that it is completely irrelevant to granting contractual arrangements among informed consenting beings.

You may have missed it, being a stupid liberal and all, but I also mentioned a "polygamist is not allowed to marry the women he loves. But he is allowed to marry just one woman, like any other man is allowed."

Maybe folks disagree with the polygamy laws. Its legal where I'm from, and I have no objections as long as everyone consents and no coercion is involved.

And your point would be? Zoophilia is still irrelevant. Animals can't comprehend or communicate high-level abstractions like legal contracts. You know, like minors, or your lawn-chair.

Ben, maybe folks disagree with homosexual marriage.

don't worry about how "we" feel about OUR GOD...take care of your own self.