» News
Too Easy, But I’ll Do It Anyway
Gay marriage advocates try to parallel the Democrat opposition to civil rights to present day people’s definition of marriage being between one man and one woman. They say that 40 years from now, people who believe marriage to be between one man and one woman will make them look like the Democrats of yesteryear.
I don’t think so. But it got me thinking.
Gay rights advocates 40 years ago looked like reasonably sane people. Below is what they look like today. Just imagine what they will look like in 40 years.
AnusPresley
May 15th, 2012
Incense and peppermints and green anal beads
sTevo
May 15th, 2012
Darwin’s Origin of Species predicts this kind of “evolution”.
You see what I did there?
Jewel
May 15th, 2012
I tried to imagine, but the visual graphic was so much better! Thanks, BFH!
serfer62
May 15th, 2012
Queers should be against Gay Marriage
after all if it wasn’t for Breeders, there’d be no queers.
CrustyB
May 15th, 2012
http://www.theonion.com/articles/gaypride-parade-sets-mainstream-acceptance-of-gays,351/
Ornery1
May 15th, 2012
In 40 years everyone will look like Rachel Maddow, there will be no discernible gender, and the issue will be moot–Except in Texas of course.
Nunya
May 15th, 2012
Ya know what? For the past 30-40 years or so “progressives” dissed marriage at every turn: “we don’t need a piece of paper to prove our love” or “we’re together ’cause we wanna be not ’cause we haftea be”
The ONLY reason they are on the marriage bandwagon now is so that they can ruin it from the inside just like they have every. single. other traditionally American institution. Think about it, every. single. once great institution, now infested and ruined by pregressives: family, church, corporations, grubbermint, public schools, nonprofits, …
If pregressives get their way on “transforming” marriage, they will not only force those to disagree to marry them anyway (just like they force pro-lifers to perform abortions), but also legitimize marrying everything from animals to children to dead people to trees to…
Houston
May 15th, 2012
I know this will sound like I’m a Holy Roller but I’ll say it anyway.
I have no problem in 40 years saying I stood up for the laws of God and defended the sanctity of marriage.
This whole backlash is retaliation from when gay people wanted to have Civil Unions defined. The country wasn’t ready and said no. Now the attack on marriage is nothing but retaliation.
AbigailAdams
May 15th, 2012
Isn’t this social engineering, straight up? I’m sure someone here will be able to set me right on this, but I think the progs have successfully placed this argument in the realm of government intervention when, at least it seems to me, government should have nothing at all to do with it. As far as I know, gays enjoy the same freedoms (albeit as quickly diminishing) as straights. Isn’t this really about forcing non-gays to “accept” gay people and everything about them? I just don’t believe that marriage is the end goal.
For example: Wasn’t there a story last week about a newspaper journalist who was being fired by their employer for being a part-time stripper? Shouldn’t the newspaper have the right to establish whatever codes of conduct are appropriate for its employees? It’s a private business, after all. If subscribers disagree, they can cancel their paper, right? That’s the free hand of the market. Shouldn’t strippers and porn stars everywhere also look to the government to “normalize” and give special legal protections to their lifestyles as well?
Isn’t this really about forcing the progressive, utopian world where everyone is “equal” not merely under the law, but according to what an individual deems personally acceptable as well? Why else would Newsweek magazine think it was okay to show a woman breastfeeding a child who can tie his own shoes, if not to continue their march of dismantling any sense of morality in society. Sever the anchor of morality and their mission is complete. When we no longer have any internal sense of right and wrong, we will absolutely need and rely on the state to tell us — according to whomever happens to be occupying the congress at the time. Over time that will prove untenable and we’ll have to have only one person who sets the standard for a life well lived.
Progressives say they want equality, but I don’t think they will be satisfied until they are a lot more “equal” than everyone else.
the aardvark
May 15th, 2012
40 years ago no one would have thought that we would abort 40-50 million + unborn children either. I was almost 20 in 1973 when Roe v Wade was decided by the Supreme Court. Where will we be in another 40 yrs? God only knows.
Callmelennie
May 15th, 2012
Western society is evolving? Doesn’t evolution need the mechanism of passing improved, adapted genes onto the next generation? But Western Civilization isn’t doing that anymore.
OTOH, as part of evolved thinking, Western Europe is subsidizing a group that will kill homosexuals on sight, a group that will eventually come to dominate Western Europe if it doesn’t get its evolved head out of its ass.
Menderman
May 15th, 2012
Being born black was not a choice, and to deny someone rights because of the circumstance of birth is wrong. While some will say that they were born gay and had no choice, (I don’t folow that logic) getting married is a choice. Putting your johnson up some other dudes poop chute is a choice. State recognition of your Marriage is NOT a right! Are you just to dumb or lazy to file the proper paperwork to define and protect your assets and final wishes?
Tell the truth. You want the law to require your acceptance by society.
It won’t work.
Death_By_Farts
May 15th, 2012
LMFAO @ Menderman’s post above!
Dead-on-Balls accurate